I would advise this ” international criminal law consultant” to read my masterpiece on what’s called Tutsi genocide. Picking on a single sentence, a comment I made on someone’s post, is gross misrepresentation of my position. The author of this piece should be able to find my masterpiece on this issue. My comment on Dr. Rudasingwa’s doc was a highlight of one of the segments of my argument; shooting down the plane.
I think the author of the piece should have mastered the concept of legal impossibility. It’s not a legal requirements – in drafting – that legal impossibility (ies) for a crime is/are included in the elements of a crime. For example, no criminal code makes ” impotence” an element of the crime called rape. However, if it’s proven that the accused was impotent at the time of the alleged crime, there is legal impossibility and so the case collapse. Likewise, if it’s proven that the massacres were never planned, those massacres cannot be called genocide. The rationale for this is clear, without planning, one wouldn’t reasonably prove the required specific intent of the crime called genocide. Genocide is a double intent crime.
I am not sure the ” international criminal law consultant” is aware of of all these complex legal theories behind the long definition of genocide which he mistakes for an argument. If there were no complex legal theories behind that definition, then everybody who’s able to read that definition would be an expert on genocide law.
I wish this ” international law consultant ” read just a little bit of the philosophical foundations of the crime of genocide. He should have learned that it cannot be genocide if the massacres are sparked off; genocide requires proof of planning/a plan.
I would have advised the author of the piece above to read Raphael Lemkin’s work. Raphael Lemkin coiled the word genocide and wrote the philosophical foundations of genocide. Again, the author of the piece above does not seem to know the philosophical foundation of this crime.
I don’t know whether the author knows the rationale for prosecuting the crime of genocide in a pyramid; planners ( at the apex) and executors ( for the people down the pyramid).
Did the author note that in Military 1 and Military 11, a bigger part of the indictment and/or charges dealt with ” planning” which prosecution failed to prove? I guess the ” international criminal law consultant” knows or should know that evidence of ” planning” which was presented in Military 1 and 11 would have been irrelevant if proving a plan / ” planning” was not required!
Even if one concentrated on the ordinary ” but for” in criminal law, how would one, and this time an “international criminal law” argue that the person responsible for the ” but for” is not responsible for the substantive crime?
If, as I know it, downing Habyarimana’s plane triggered the massacres, then (a) those massacres cannot be called genocide and (b) the person who downed the plan is responsible for the massacres. I am troubled to learn that an ” international criminal law consultant”, whatever that means, does not seem to appreciate this basic criminal law principle.
Dr Charles Kambanda