Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa

 

SYMPOSIUM

ECONOMIC CRIMES AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE: Elevating Corruption to the Status of a Crime in Positive International Law

By Ndiva Kofele KALE, Esq
Thursday, June 25, 2009

  1. INTRODUCTION

In 2002 the Assembly of the African Union adopted the African Union Convention for Preventing and Combating Corruption; two years later in 2004 the first global anti-corruption instrument was adopted, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Six years separate this spate of international legislation and the adoption of the first comprehensive regional convention against official corruption in March 1996 by the Organization of American States (OAS). What, one may ask, explains this heightened global interest in combating official corruption and the push for the adoption of these key  multilateral instruments to assist in the war against corruption?

I will in my time before you (1) situate the problem of corruption, more precisely, indigenous spoliation, in both its African and global contexts; (2) briefly discuss its effects on societies; (3) take a stab at making the case why it should be treated as an international economic crime in positive international law, more precisely, that is, a crime that shocks the conscience of humankind, and (4) propose a way forward.

2. THE CONTEXT

I submit that what has been taking place in the last five decades or so is a coordinated plan whose effect, if not objective, is the destruction of the essential foundations of the economic life of a society. It is the systematic looting and stashing in foreign banks of the financial resources of a State; the arbitrary and systematic deprivation of the economic rights of the citizens of a nation by its leaders, elected and appointed, in military regimes as well as civilian governments in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, on a scale so vast and never before seen in history. As the man who coined the word “genocide” sixty years ago argued, a new crime deserves a new name. A fortiori this activity deserves a new name for five compelling reasons: 

First, unlike past depredations where the wealth remained in the territory for recycling, the modern context is characterized by “great mobility of wealth and the capacity to hide and disguise it.” The bulk of the estimated $10-$30 billion fortune of the late President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, was stashed in about 7,270 gold accounts scattered across several Swiss banks, many of which were under different names. With that many numbered as well as unnumbered accounts efforts at detecting and tracing the whereabouts of stolen national assets usually end up becoming a game of hide-and-seek! And where these assets can be traced the sheer volume of transactions can seriously impede the degree to which the majority of victim States can aggressively mount any successful recovery and repatriation effort.

Second, the evidence is overwhelming that bulk of stolen national assets is never reinvested in productive enterprises in their countries of origin. These predators prefer to invest their stolen wealth in other places obviously to avoid detection and subsequent recovery. For instance, the late President Omar Bongo investment havens of choice appear to have been Senegal and Morocco: he held shares (ranging between 5 and 30 per cent) in 20 companies based in that country; he owned over 5,270 hectares of prime real estate in various regions of Senegal; a 90-bed hotel in Casablanca and another in Marrakesh (60-bed), a 48-bed Parisian hotel and a 50-bed hotel in Switzerland; he also owned buildings in France and the United States in addition to those in Senegal.

A third feature of the modern version of indigenous spoliation is the quantum of assets involved, usually in the billions of dollars. So stupendous are the amounts that one commentator was moved to describe this type of depredation as going beyond shame and almost beyond imagination. Indeed, the private buildup of looted assets stashed abroad is usually so large in relation to the total external debts of the countries from which the funds were stolen; and in some cases private wealth even exceeds a country’s total foreign debt! For instance, by the Nigerian Government's own account, that nation's total external indebtedness stood at $28 billion (some five years ago) which is approximately 28 per cent of the $100 billion of national funds in private hands. Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually through acts of corruption, an amount which represents 25% of the continent’s Gross Domestic Product!!

Worse, some of these looted funds account for a significant share of the victim country’s annual GDP: Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines is alleged to have stolen between 1.5 and 4.5 percent of his nation’s annual GDP while Sani Abacha’s estimated net worth represents between 1.5 and 3.7 percent of Nigeria’s GDP.

Fourth, those most implicated in the systematic plunder of national wealth come from a particular class of people who hold public trust: heads of state and government as well as other high ranking constitutionally elected and appointed leaders; their families and closest friends. For example, Chile’s former military strongman General Augusto Pinochet who during his 25 years as head of state earned a modest annual salary that never went above $40,000 is alleged to have hidden $27 million in overseas accounts under false names. His financial adviser would explain this immense fortune as the product of shrewd and prudent investing! Not to be outdone, Nigeria’s Abacha on his death in 1998 left behind a fortune estimated anywhere between $2 and $5 billion, all of which fleeced from the Nigerian people!

And herein lies the paradox: in this modern version of corruption, the ones engaged in the systematic pillaging of a nation’s wealth happen to be the very high ranking officials who have a fiduciary duty to protect these valuable resources. This reminds one of the question the Roman satirist Juvenal posed as far back as the 6th century B.C.: “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”(But who will guard the guardians?). Or as a Kenyan proverb puts it: “Only fools who send hyenas to roast meat for them.”

 Lastly, what is also new about contemporary indigenous spoliation is the social and economic devastation that follows when capital of the magnitude described above is allowed to leave any country, but particularly a capital-poor developing one. As a matter of fact, the negative impact of this kind of capital flight on development is no longer questioned:

  1. Reduces economic growth and discourages FDIs because it undermines the performance, integrity and effectiveness of the private sector. According to an IMF study, distortions generated by corruption result in lower investments and economic growth.
  2. Decreases and diverts government revenues as evident in the systematic plunder of revenue generating agencies such as tax collection and customs. In a given year, for instance, of the $135 million in custom duties collected from one cash-strapped developing country only $14 million (about 10%) was paid into the state treasury, the rest evaporated into thin air! With less money for the government budget less money will be available to address pressing societal needs. Cameroon’s budget for 2009 stands at $4.6 billion, of which $715 million is earmarked for primary and secondary education, $226 million for public health and $115 million for the agricultural sector (including fisheries, livestock and the environment). The late President Bongo’s deposits in banks in Cyprus, Dubai, France, Greece, Switzerland and the United States add up to $280 million, enough to underwrite Cameroon’s 2009 budget allocation for public health or a third of the primary and secondary education budget! 
  3. Misallocates scarce resources. State funds are diverted by a small bureaucratic/political oligarchy at the expense of the mass of the population. Evidence from across the globe confirms that corruption impacts the poor disproportionately. A direct consequence of this misallocation of scarce resources is that the limited funds intended for priority social sector spending are shifted to areas that benefit few people. Recent investigations by the United States Senate on the role U.S. banks have played in protecting the assets of questionable origins drive home this point with particular poignancy. Investigations of Riggs Bank, one of Washington D.C.’s most venerable banks, revealed that this institution managed more than 60 accounts and Certificates of Deposits (CDs) for an African Government, its officials and their family members with balances and outstanding loans that together approached $700 million in 2003.
  4. Renders government regulations ineffective. When in return for a substantial bribe, public servants systematically evade requirements for, say, public health and protection of the environment the consequences can be quite disastrous for peoples’ livelihoods and a country or region’s environment and bio-diversity.
  5. Breeds impunity and dilutes public integrity. Government officials, judges and magistrates who engage in acts of corruption wittingly or unwittingly contribute in strengthening the hold and influence of criminal and corrupt elements in that society. Corruption in the judiciary is fertile ground for impunity, uncertainty and unpredictability for those who seek recourse to justice, in particular the poor and the disadvantaged.
  6. Violates human rights. A corrupt state creates a vicious circle in which the state quickly loses its authority and ability to govern for the common good. Corruption makes it possible for critics to be silenced, for justice to be subverted and for human rights abuses to go unpunished. When corruption reigns, basic human rights and liberties are threatened and social and economic contracts become unpredictable. It comes as no surprise that countries that are high on Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index are the ones where respect for human rights is at the lowest.
  7. Finally, available evidence also indicates that corruption encourages political instability. Stolen national funds are often used to buy weapons to fuel domestic conflict and when this happen, the political stability of many of these victim states is placed in jeopardy. Such was the case in Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone, and continues to be the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to name but a few of these conflict-prone states.

 3. THE CASE FOR THE NEW CRIME OF PATRIMONICIDE

It is against this backdrop that I proposed back in 1995 that we need to come up with a new name to describe this kind of activity, a name that will capture the destructive consequences of the activity. In my writings I refer to state corruption as “indigenous spoliation”, which I define as “an illegal act of depredation committed for private ends by constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” Others prefer such terms as “embezzlement” or “misappropriation” or “corruption” or “graft” or “fraudulent enrichment” to describe the widespread practice of office holders confusing the public fisc with their private accounts, but these concepts do not adequately convey the full force of this relatively new phenomenon. If anything, they signify only the raw act of depredation but not its effect which is the destruction of the social, economic and moral foundation of the victim nation.

As I said in my opening remarks this activity deserves a new name, for, as Raphael Lemkin argued some six decades ago when he introduced the word “genocide” into the lexicon of political discourse, a new crime deserves a new name. Taking my cue from Lemkin I have somewhat immodestly taken the liberty of inventing the word ‘patrimonicide’ as the name for this new international economic crime. The word comes from combining the Latin words ‘patrimonium’ meaning “[t]he estate or property belonging by ancient right to an institution, corporation, or class; especially the ancient estate or endowment of a church or religious body” and, of course, ‘cide’ meaning killing. It is submitted that indigenous spoliation is the very essence of the destruction (or killing, if you please) of the sum total of a nation's endowment; the laying waste of the wealth and resources belonging by right to her citizens; the denial of their heritage.
Lemkin was unequivocal in his 1945 article that the crime of the Nazis “in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples [was] not utterly new in the world. It [was] only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It [was] so new in the traditions of civilized man that he [had] no name for it.” In the same vein, while indigenous spoliation is an old practice, it has now taken on some distinctively new features. It is conceded that political leaders have throughout history misappropriated the wealth of their peoples, but what is different with this new generation of “economic crimes of constitutionally-responsible officials” is the scale and gravity. We are talking of acts so grave, on a scale so large, that their very execution diminishes the human race as a whole.

When Lemkin first introduced the word “genocide” back in the 1940s, he coined the term as a “kind of speech-act”. He meant for the crime’s very name to be a call for universal opprobrium—one that would inspire, if it did not mandate, punishment and prevention. This is precisely what we hope the word patrimonicide will accomplish in the not-too-distant future. A call to arms to prevent and punish those constitutionally responsible leaders whose acts of plunder of their peoples’ collective wealth simply has no parallel in human history!

The activities associated with this conduct satisfy the exacting standard of the Nuremberg Principles and the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind. As such, they should be treated as a crime of universal concern that engages the individual responsibility of its author(s).

1.         Individual Criminal Responsibility

The Nuremberg Tribunal set the standard some sixty years ago by acknowledging that “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” Article 1 of the Draft Code of Crimes which sets out the scope and application of the Code provides that the Code applies to those crimes set out in Part II and that those crimes are punishable under international law whether or not they are punishable under domestic law.  The Commentary to article 2 of the Draft Code of Crimes that establishes the principle of individual criminal responsibility for the commission of crimes against the peace and security of mankind notes that this principle is the enduring legacy of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment: “It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of sovereign States, and provides no punishment for individuals. . . . In the opinion of the Tribunal [this submission] must be rejected.” That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognized.  The principle of individual responsibility and punishment for international crimes is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of international criminal law.  It was most recently reaffirmed in the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (article 7, paragraph 1 and article 23, paragraph 1) and Rwanda (article 6, paragraph 1 and article 22, paragraph 1) and Rwanda and implicitly in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

2.         Appropriate Punishment

Punishment is the other half of the doctrine of individual responsibility for crimes under international law.  Punishment is essential as a deterrent against violations of the law.  Article 3 of the Draft Code of Crimes codifies this double-edged principle by providing that “an individual who is responsible for a [crime under international law] shall be liable to punishment.  The punishment shall be commensurate with the character and gravity of the crime.”2 As a universal crime, the penalty for acts of indigenous spoliation will depend on the jurisdiction which in turn will determine the appropriate penalty and the severity.  So, for instance, if a State were exercising jurisdictional competence over the accused, its national courts may decide on the applicable penalty and “may or may not admit extenuating or aggravating circumstances.” On the other hand, if jurisdiction is exercised by an international court, such as the newly-established International Criminal Court (ICC), the applicable punishment will be fixed by “an international convention, either in the statute of the international court or in another instrument if the statute of the international court does not so provide.”

  1. THE WAY FORWARD

 

We note the failure of regional (AU & OAS) and global (UN) anti-corruption conventions to address the question of official corruption as a crime in positive international law. These instruments talk instead of the crime of illicit enrichment (see Articles 8, IX, 20, respectively).

Having failed here, the focus has now shifted to the ICC Assembly of State Parties to persuade it to take another look at the Rome Statute of the ICC with a view to amending Articles 5 and 7 to include indigenous spoliation as one of the crimes within the court’s jurisdiction [i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, & aggression].

1.    Sovereign Action: During the drafting of the Rome Statute the Government of  Trinidad & Tobago  tried unsuccessfully to have the scope of Article 5 expanded by including “state theft” as a crime against humanity.

2.   Advocacy by Non-Governmental Organizations in Europe such as the London-based Global Witness (GW) (http://www.globalwitness.org). GW has in the last four years or so been trying to organize a global campaign around my work. The campaign will be modeled after GW’s successful international campaigns to combat illicit trade in conflict diamonds and conflict timber and against corruption in the petroleum industry.  This campaign will ride on the clear and simple call of having an international treaty/convention/protocol that views Patrimonicide/Indigenous Spoliation as a crime under the law of nations. Global Witness is also exploring how countries currently in transition from conflict, such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, could be persuaded to include the concept in their new constitutions or in primary legislation.  

3.   Civil society groups in East Africa are talking among themselves on the need to recognize indigenous spoliation as a crime within the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute.  They hope to accomplish this by campaigning for an expansion of the list of enumerated acts under “crime against humanity” [murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape, sexual slavery or other forms of sexual violence, apartheid, etc.] to include indigenous spoliation.

4.    Individual Initiatives.

A TV journalist working in the United Kingdom is currently working on a program on indigenous spoliation, using the upcoming Review Conference of the ICC Assembly of States Parties to once again raise the issue of amending the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction ratione materiae to include the crime of indigenous spoliation.

 

SOME KIND OF CONCLUSION

It remains my hope that decent people would be revolted by the excesses of a Pinochet, a Sani Abacha, the Omar Bongos and Obiang Nguemas or an Ondong Ndong and would as a consequence share this author’s view that depredations of this sort qualify as a crime against humanity. In Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia captured the essence of a crime against humanity as “... inhumane acts that by their very extent and gravity go beyond the limits tolerable to the international community, which must per force demand their punishment. But crimes against humanity also transcend the individual because when the individual is assaulted, humanity comes under attack and is negated. It is therefore the concept of humanity as victim which essentially characterises crimes against humanity.” When a head of state or a government minister takes for his private use state resources that are sufficient to retire his country’s external debt or to underwrite the cost of basic services to millions of his compatriots, such an act goes beyond the pale of civilized conduct and deserves to be severely punished.


A question earlier raised in Ndiva Kofele-Kale, The ‘Outing’ of ‘Grand’ Corruption: a Decade of International Law-making to Combat a Threat to Economic and Social Progress, 35 THE QUAD, pp. 54-60 (Summer 2004).
 

For a specifically African focus on the problem, see Ndiva Kofele-Kale, Change or the Illusion of Change: The War Against Official Corruption in Africa, Vol. 38 George Washington International Law Review, pp. 697-747 (2005-2006).

 

See Raphael Lemkin, Genocide - A Modern Crime, 9FREE WORLD 39 (April 1945); see also Raphael Lemkin, Genocide, 15 AMERICAN SCHOLAR 227 (1946); and Raphael Lemkin, Genocide as a Crime under International Law,  41 AM. J. INT’L L. 145 (1947). It may be argued that the depredations complained of here pale in comparison to the horrors of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda or the killing fields of Cambodia and Kurdish Iraq, the kinds of physical destruction that shock the conscience of mankind and for which Lemkin's term “genocide” is reserved. Be that as it may, recognition that spoliation by indigenous rulers is offensive is a step forward in the evolution of international law as it pertains to respect for the rights and obligations of individuals. We have here an activity whose effects are immediate as capital flight, particular the massive amounts involved here, have immediate macro- and micro-economic consequences. The victims are easily identifiable: unemployed and underemployed college and university graduates whom the economy simply cannot absorb; ordinary citizens who cannot count on services from any of the social agencies, etc., undernourishment, high infant mortality rates, and so on.

See Press Release GA/EF/3002, Fifty-seventh General Assembly Second Committee 10th Meeting (AM)(Statement by O.A. Ashiru, Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) of the United Nations General Assembly.

See Princewill Ekwujuru, Corruption is bleeding Africa dry! Available at www.asconline.org. (last viewed June 13, 2009).

See NDIVA KOFELE-KALE, ENFORCING INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CRIMES IN DOMESTIC COURTS, chapter 1 (London: Routledge-Cavendish, Forthcoming).

Timothy L. O’Brien & Larry Rohter, “The Pinochet Money,” New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004. Available in www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2004/1212 pinotrial.htm

See Transparency International, “Where did the money go?—The top 10,” Available at www.transparency.org/pressreleases archive/20004 (last viewed June 13, 2009).

See JUVENAL, SATIRE VI (trans. G.G. Ramsey).

See generally UNDP PRACTICE NOTE: ANTI-CORRUPTION FINAL VERSION FEBRUARY 2004, 2.2, 3-4; see also UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME, THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME AGAINST CORRUPTION: UN ANTI-CORRUPTION TOOLKIT, 3rd ed. (September 2006) and UNDP Discussion Paper, Corruption and Good Governance. Available at http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/efa/corruption3/corruption3.htm.

It is worth noting that the President of this African country flies in a $30 million presidential jet while his unemployed wife maintains a bank credit card with a $10,000daily limit.  Yet in this country 30% of the population is unemployed; 4 of every 10 children under age 5 suffer from malnutrition; for every 1,000 babies born in the country 101 die at birth; few ever get to visit a doctor since the country can only boast 125 physicians; and only 44% of the population has access to potable water.  Government spends less than 2%, or a miserly $106 per capita, of the national budget for health service, one of the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa.

See, e.g., Ndiva Kofele-Kale,  The Right to a Corruption-Free Society as an Individual and Collective Human Right: Elevating Official Corruption to a Crime under International Law, Vol.  34, No. 1, The International Lawyer, pp. 149-178 (Spring 2000), see also,__________, Presumed Guilty: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in Combating Economic Crimes, Vol. 40, No. 4 The International Lawyer, pp. 909-944 (Winter 2006)..

See Jonathan M. Winer, “Illicit Finance and Global Conflict, Economics of Conflict: Private Sector Activity in Armed Conflict,” in Programme for International Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science, 1, 33 (March 2002).

See generally, Ndiva Kofele-Kale, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR ECONOMIC CRIMES:  HOLDING STATE OFFICIALS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR ACTS OF FRAUDULENT ENRICHMENT 2nd Edition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006). xi + 411 pp; _______________, Patrimonicide: The International Economic Crime of Indigenous Spoliation, Vol. 28, No. 1 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law  pp. 45-118- (January 1995); ; ________________, Corruption and Indigenous Spoliation, Vol. 12, No. 4 Law & Business Review of the Americas, pp. 459-471 (Fall 2006); and _________________, Guarding the Guardians: A Festchrift for Roberto MacLean, in LAW, CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A LIBER AMICORUM FOR PROFESSOR ROBERTO MACLEAN (London: British Institute of International & Comparative Law, 2007); pp. 173-179.

 

Lemkin was one of three experts - the other two were Professor Donnedieu de Vabres of the University of Paris and Professor Pella, President of the International Association of Penal Law - who assisted Professor Humphrey, Director of the Division of Human Rights at the U.N. in prepare a draft convention on genocide. See Draft Convention on Genocide, at 15. Raphael Lemkin, was a Polish-Jew who escaped from Nazi-occupied Poland and traveled to the United States where he pursued his twin passions of philology and international law. Lemkin spent much of the war trying to get the US authorities to understand the enormity of what was happening to European Jewry. He believed that once genocide was recognized in international and national law, it would inevitably be the more forcefully opposed by the community of nations.  He had little success at first, but with the Holocaust and revelations of what the Nazis had done during World War II to specific groups, such as Jews and gypsies, the world became more receptive to outlawing such unconscionable behavior. Lemkin was an important figure behind the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted by the United Nations on 9 December 1948 and entered into force on 12 January 1951. For a sympathetic treatment of Lemkin, see Samantha Power, A PROBLEM FROM HELL: AMERICA AND THE AGE OF GENOCIDE (2002).

See Ndiva Kofele-Kale, Patrimonicide: The International Economic Crime of Indigenous Spoliation, Vol. 28, No. 1 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law  pp. 45-118- (January 1995)(where the word was first introduced to the international legal community).

An essential characteristic of universal crimes is that a “state may participate in their repression even though they were not committed in its territory, were not committed by one of its nationals, or were not otherwise within its jurisdiction to prescribe and enforce.”  A crime of universal interest, that is, a crime under international law, can be characterized as such irrespective of its designation under domestic law.  This is what is meant by the principle of the supremacy of international law over national law; reaffirmed in the Draft Code of Crimes in Article 2.  Additionally, crimes of universal interest must come with adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. For instance, the prohibition against double jeopardy (non bis in idem) and non-retroactivity.  The former protects an individual accused of committing an international crime from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same act or the same crime.  It guards against multiple trials conducted in different national courts for the same offense.  Where the principle of non bis in idem seeks to safeguard the accused from capricious judicial treatment from the criminal justice process, the doctrine of retroactivity seeks to uphold the fundamental objectives of criminal law which is to prohibit, to punish and to deter conduct which is considered sufficiently serious in nature to justify characterizing it a crime.  Satisfying this principle requires that the standard of conduct that differentiates between permissible and prohibited conduct be defined a priori.  The Commentary to the Draft Code of Crimes makes the point that “[t]he prosecution and punishment of an individual for an act or omission that was not prohibited when the individual decided to act or to refrain from acting would be manifestly unjust.”  This provision is without prejudice to the prosecution and punishment of an accused for a crime under pre-existing national law, provided the national law in question is applied in conformity with international law.

NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION, OPINION AND JUDGMENT 66 (1947).

Id.

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL (FOR THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA). Annex to the Secretary-general’s Report on Aspects of Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, U.N. Doc. S/25704 (3 May 1993).

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 827 ON ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA (WITH ANNEXED STATUTE). Adopted 8 November 1994. S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, 49th Sess., 343rd mtg., at 15, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), Art. 6, para. 1 and art. 22, para. 1.

Adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998. Entered into force, 1 July 2002. 2187 U.N.T.S. 3.

See Draft Code of Crimes, Article 3, Commentary (5).

Id., Article 3, Commentary (7).

See Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Sentencing Judgment, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Trial Chamber I, 29 Nov. 1996, reprinted in 108 I.L.R. 180 (1996).

 

<< Back

CHRDA

Dedicated to the protection and advancement of human rights and the promotion of democracy as a political culture in Africa.

DONATE

Headquarters

Cameroon
Box 524 Buea,
Fako Division
Tel: 237-33026975
cameroonoffice@chrda.org