Magister Legum - LLM (Criminal Justice and Procedure) / In previous centuries, millions of women, men and children were victims of inconceivable atrocities that deeply shocked the scruples of mankind. Regrettably, such crimes often went unpunished in the past. Several people lost lives in the two world wars and in conflicts in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia. Although the International Military Tribunal and ad hoc courts prosecuted some of the major perpetrators in these conflicts, before then, many criminals such as German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, remained unpunished. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent court with jurisdiction over the most malignant crimes threatening the peace, security and well-being of the world.

Magister Legum - LLM / The study objective has been to examine the progress and challenges of implementing the Rome Statute in Uganda and to what extent the substantive provisions of the Rome Statute are implemented by the International Criminal Court Act.

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this study is the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was a thriving success for the international community insofar as that it contributed greatly to international criminal law jurisprudence. The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court and confers upon the ICC jurisdiction over the international crimes namely: the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes and the crime of aggression

Magister Legum - LLM

Magister Legum - LLM / The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It provides that the Court is complementary to national jurisdictions. This entails that the primary jurisdiction over core crimes lies at the domestic level. However, in the absence of express provision for implementation, States have adopted different methods in the incorporating of the substantive and the procedural provisions of the Rome Statute. The German Code of Crimes against International Law and the South African Implementation of the Rome Statute Act considered under this study are indicative of the existing divergence. This paper argues that complementarity necessitates the divergence in approach. It further argues that the diversity is an issue of pluralism rather than fragmentation of international criminal law.

Magister Legum - LLM / With regard to the establishment of legislative frameworks for investigating and prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at both national and international level, a number of pertinent issues come up concerning the Court which should have primacy to deal with a particular case. States have had a variety of options at their disposal, such as complementarity, exclusivity, subsidiarity and concurrent jurisdiction principles. As a rule, these experiences find their limits in the full criminalisation of conduct that is also punishable before the international criminal tribunals under international law, ignoring the fact that international law does not provide definite guidance with respect to a number of questions in relation to interaction between national and international jurisdiction vis-à-vis the ‘core crimes.’ In addition,a considerable increase in the content of international law and divergences in various legal systems in criminal law, both general and special, since the end of World War II, influence the effective prosecution of ‘core crimes.’ Against this background; this work is organised into five chapters. Chapter one gives a general introduction and background to the study. Chapter two will set out the present international legal framework governing the prosecution of ‘core crimes’ in national courts and a description of the relevant practice in various states. Chapter three will examine critically the jurisdiction and overlaps of the international courts and ad hoc tribunals,along with the corresponding models of international criminal justice of exclusivity, subsidiarity, complimentarity and concurrent jurisdiction. Chapter four seeks to discuss the optimal relationship based on interactions between national and international jurisdictions. It will also include the merits and limits of both jurisdictions, basing on existing precedents and legislation.Finally, Chapter five contains a summary of conclusions drawn from the whole study and winds up with a set of recommendations.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The 20th century witnessed several wars and genocides worldwide. Notable examples include the Armenian and Jews genocides which took place during World War I and World War II respectively. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a more recent example where a large number of the population was affected, either as victims or perpetrators. Over 800,000 Tutsis were dead, and more than 120,000 suspects were in prison for the genocide. The present study focuses on the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi where the scale of the crimes simultaneously dictated the overwhelming need for justice at both international and national level. At the international level, the ICTR was set up by the United Nations to deal with the organisers of the genocide while the Rwandan national courts were left to deal with the remaining suspects. Yet it became increasingly clear that the national courts lacked themselves the capacity to deal with the vast majority of alleged perpetrators. If their impact was to be enhanced, they needed to rely on the support of alternative justice mechanisms. So Rwanda introduced a modern version of the traditional Gacaca courts as an attempt to deal with the huge backlog of cases in order to combat the culture of impunity. However, having different courts for one and the same situation has had its own limitations. One of these issues is the legal and practical disparities that exist between the ad hoc International Tribunal and national justice mechanisms in the process of prosecuting perpetrators, such as the unequal treatment of the accused. This study therefore attempts to show these discrepancies and their impact on the process of accountability and reconciliation. Thus, the study analyses the relationship between the ICTR, national courts and Gacaca in prosecution of genocide suspects as well as lessons from the adopted ‘multifaceted approaches’ to deal with the crime of genocide.