Shortcomings Related to Genocide Trials: A Comparative Case Study of Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia

This book investigates the legal shortcomings experienced by the ad hoc tribunals created in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, with regard to genocide trials. International Criminal Law has experienced phenomenal growth in the past decade owing to international crises witnessed in these two countries. The impetus provided by the two crises led to the formation of ad hoc tribunals to prosecute mass violations of human rights in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. <br><br>These tribunals helped in bringing about accountability for the crime of genocide and contributed towards peace and reconciliation in the two regions. The major contribution of the ad hoc tribunals has been the harmonization of the requirements for the prosecution of genocide. Through the definition of genocide which has been developed by the two tribunals, especially as far as protected persons is concerned, the crime of genocide is now firmly entrenched under International Law, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as the Elements of Crimes Act, 2002, which form part of the applicable law of article 21 of the ICC. <br> <br>However, the ad hoc tribunals have had a number of shortcomings in the course of prosecuting perpetrators of genocide. For starters, the formation of the tribunals to prosecute crimes that were not known in law violated the principle of legality, which is a key element in criminal prosecution. This led many accused persons to question the jurisdiction of the court to undertake prosecutions of this nature. The rich jurisprudence of the tribunals in the crime of genocide not only forms a point of reference but these tribunals formed a basis for the establishment of a true International Criminal Court situated in The Hague.