[pt] Entre 06 de abril a 20 de julho de 1994, após a queda do avião que transportava, dentre outros passageiros, o então presidente de Ruanda, Juvenal Habyarimana, ocorreu um dos maiores genocídios da história contemporânea, o genocídio em Ruanda. De forma organizada e sistemática, estima-se que entre 800.000 a 1.000.000 pessoas, tutsis em especial, tenham sido exterminadas. Através da Resolução número 955/94, o Conselho de Segurança da ONU demonstrou preocupação com as graves violações do Direito Internacional Humanitário, ocorridas no território ruandês. Nesse sentido, foi criado o Tribunal Penal Internacional para Ruanda (TPIR), com mandato para apurar os crimes praticados durante o genocídio daquele país e punir os responsáveis por estes crimes. O presente estudo tem por objetivo verificar as contribuições do TPIR para o Direito Internacional Penal e a Justiça Penal Internacional. Verificou-se que o TPIR auxiliou na definição e elaboração de diversos conceitos sobre os crimes internacionais centrais previstos no Estatuto do TPIR e na Convenção de Genocídio de 1948. Ainda, produziu farta jurisprudência e grande corpus de direito material e processual, e efetuou a responsabilização dos grandes líderes do genocídio em questão. Desta forma, contribuiu para a evolução do Direito Internacional Penal e também para a criação de um Tribunal Penal Internacional Permanente. / [en] Between April 6 and July 20, 1994, after the plane crash carrying, among other passengers, the then president of Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarimana, one of the greatest genocides in contemporary history took place, the genocide in Rwanda. In an organized and systematic way, it is estimated that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 people, Tutsis in particular, were exterminated. Through Resolution number 955/94, the UN Security Council expressed concern about the serious violations of international humanitarian law that occurred in Rwanda. In this sense, the International Criminal Court of Rwanda (ICTR) was created, with a mandate to investigate the crimes committed during the genocide of that country and punish those responsible for these crimes. This study aims to verify the contributions of the ICTR to International Criminal Law and International Criminal Justice. It appears that the ICTR assisted in the definition and elaboration of several concepts on the central international crimes provided for in the ICTR Statute and in the 1948 Genocide Convention. Furthermore, it produced abundant jurisprudence and a large corpus of substantive and procedural law, and effected the accountability of the great leaders of the genocide in question. In this way, it contributed to the evolution of International Criminal Law and a creation of a permanent international criminal court.

La reconnaissance du droit de participation et du droit à réparation des victimes est l’évolution la plus remarquable des dernières décennies dans le domaine des droits nationaux et dans le cadre de la justice pénale internationale. Les Juridictions Pénales Internationales construisent le statut des victimes. Confrontés à des concepts innovants, les juges doivent créer des précédents et organiser les modalités des droits des victimes. Ils doivent allier la coordination de la représentation légale de milliers de victimes avec les impératifs de la justice. Au vu des premières décisions, la place des victimes est acquise puisque les juges ont accepté leur participation. Cependant, leur interprétation des règles apporte de sérieuses restrictions aux droits des victimes dans la pratique. La participation des victimes n’est pas pleinement effective et leur réparation se révèle exceptionnelle. Ainsi, l’intérêt de l’étude de la jurisprudence réside dans la détermination du statut réel des victimes au sein des procès internationaux et l’importance des droits appliqués. Des évolutions positives sont possibles en faveur de la reconnaissance du statut de parties au procès et de l’effectivité des droits des victimes. / The recognition of the right to participate and the right to reparation to the victimes is the most remarkable evolution of these last decades in the national laws and in the International Criminal Justice. The International Criminal Jurisdictions built the victims’ status. Confronted to innovative concepts, the judges have to create precedents and organise the modalities of the victim’s rights. They have to combine the coordination of the legal representation of thousands of victims with the necessity of justice. In view of the first decisions, the place of the victimes is established since the judges grant them the right to participate. However, their interpretation of the rules brings serious limitations to the rights of the victims in the practice. The victims’ participation is not fully applied and their reparation turns out to be exceptionnal. So, the interest of the jurisprudence study resides in the determination of the real status of the victims in the international trial and the importance of the granted rights. Positive evolutions can be made in favor of the recognition of the status of parties in the trial and the effectiveness of the rigths of the victims.

On October 1, 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a war from and with the support of the Republic of Uganda against Rwanda. This war was accompanied by unspeakable violations of International Humanitarian Law. Both conflicting parties violated the basic rules protecting the civilian population in situations of armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter, passed resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute alleged responsible of such violations. This study investigates the background of the ICTR and questions the nature of the conflict that prompted the Security Council to establish another ad hoc international criminal tribunal after the one established for the former Yugoslavia. It further inquires into its jurisprudence and reflects critically on the ICTR's approach to serious violations of IHL under Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. / Jurisprudence / LL. M. (Law)

Si le respect du droit à un procès équitable devrait occuper une place éminente au sein de toute société démocratique, cette exigence revêt un caractère axiomatique au sein d'une juridiction tournée vers la lutte contre l'impunité et la protection des droits de l'homme, telle que la Cour pénale internationale. Le peu de jugements rendus depuis plus de dix ans par la Cour permanente pourrait laisser penser qu'une telle étude est encore prématurée. Cette analyse met au contraire en exergue la densité de son activité et la singularité de ses procédures. Sacralisé par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, le droit à un procès équitable se décline en règles qui régissent non seulement les relations entre les parties mais aussi les rapports des individus avec la juridiction. Si la notion de droit à un procès équitable est familière des juristes, son interprétation pose un certain nombre de difficultés nouvelles. L'hybridité structurelle et normative de la Cour pénale internationale influencera nécessairement la réception que celle-ci réservera au principe, mais également l'interprétation unique qu'il conviendra de donner à ce droit fondamental. Prenant acte du caractère novateur de cette juridiction, cette thèse n'omettra pas d'envisager le droit à un procès équitable sous le prisme singulier de la victime, nouveau visage du procès. Souvent exclue du débat judiciaire relatif à l'équité des procédures, cette analyse s'attèle à replacer cet acteur au coeur des préoccupations régissant la conduite équitable du procès. / While the right to a fair trial should be at the heart of any democratic society, this requirement has an axiomatic significance in a court dedicated to the fight against impunity and the protection of human rights, such as the International Criminal Court. In view of the few judgments rendered in over ten years of this permanent Court's existence, this study might seem somewhat premature.Rather, this analysis purports to shed light on the diverse nature of the Court's activities and the unique character of its procedures. Enshrined by the European Court of Human Rights, the right to a fair trial is expressed in the form of regulations that govern not only the relationships between the parties, but also the interaction of individuals with the Court. The concept of the right to a fair trial may be familiar to legal experts trained in different legal traditions. Still its interpretation is fraught with challenges that are new and specific to this permanent Court. The structural and normative hybridity of the ICC will inevitably influence not only the treatment of this concept, but also the unique interpretation that this fundamental right deserves. Against the backdrop of the innovative nature of this Court, it would be remiss of the author of this thesis not to consider the right to a fair trial through the unique prism of the victim, the new face in the trial. Often excluded from the judicial debate on the fairness of the proceedings, this analysis will nevertheless endeavour to place this stakeholder back in the heart of the concerns over the conduct of a fair trial.

La création de juridictions internationales pour juger les responsables d'un crime international pose la question des techniques d'imputation. Il s'agit de la mise en oeuvre du principe de la responsabilité pénale individuelle (RPI) en droit international. D'une part, le DPI emprunte les techniques traditionnelles aux droits pénaux internes. Il s'agit des techniques dépendantes de la consommation du crime international : les formes différentes de « commission » et de « complicité ». Sont empruntées, aussi, d'autres techniques traditionnelles d'imputation qui sont indépendantes de la consommation du crime : la tentative et l'incrimination de quelques actes de complicité. Ces techniques correspondent aux exigences de la RPI, d'où la confirmation du principe. D'autre part, le DPI adopte des nouvelles techniques d'imputation pour faire face à la nature collective du crime international. Se fondant sur l'idée de « groupe », des techniques associatives sont mises en place : la responsabilité pour l'appartenance à une organisation criminelle ou bien de la responsabilité des actes du groupe à travers l'entreprise criminelle commune ou le contrôle conjoint sur l'action du groupe. En même temps, le fait que les crimes sont souvent commis par des « structures hiérarchiques » est pris en compte pour envisager des techniques structurelles ; à savoir la responsabilité pour commission indirecte par le contrôle d'une organisation ou de la responsabilité du supérieur hiérarchique pour les crimes commis par ses subordonnés. Chacune de ces techniques s'écarte de ce que l'on entend généralement par la RPI, d'où la métamorphose du principe. Une reconstruction de la notion est à l'ordre du jour. / The establishment of International criminal tribunals raises the question of techniques of attributing criminal liability. Having the individual as « subject », the principle of individual criminal responsibility is at issue. On the one hand, International criminal law borrows traditional techniques of imputing liability from national law. Not only those techniques that depend on the completion of an international crime; as forms of perpetration and complicity, but also those that attribute responsibility independently of the completion of international crime; as attempt and specific incrimination of some forms of complicity. Individual criminal responsibility in its traditional connotation is confirmed. On the other hand, International criminal law forges new techniques of imputing liability to accommodate the collective nature of international crimes. Based on the idea of « group » action, associative techniques are introduced. As such, the responsibility for membership in criminal organisation, or even the responsibility for group crimes through notions like « joint criminal enterprise » or « joint control » are applied. In the meanwhile, the structural aspect of entities committing international crimes is taken in consideration. Superiors who manipulate organisations under their control are considered as indirect perpetrators. Also, superiors who fail to stop or to punish crimes committed by their subordinates are held responsible. Each one of these new techniques of imputing responsibility metamorphoses one or more aspects of what is generally intended by the principle of individual criminal responsibility. Reconstructing the notion seems due.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Universität, Frankfurt am Main, 2006. / Material type: Dissertations. Includes bibliographical references (p. 283-317).

On October 1, 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a war from and with the support of the Republic of Uganda against Rwanda. This war was accompanied by unspeakable violations of International Humanitarian Law. Both conflicting parties violated the basic rules protecting the civilian population in situations of armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter, passed resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute alleged responsible of such violations. This study investigates the background of the ICTR and questions the nature of the conflict that prompted the Security Council to establish another ad hoc international criminal tribunal after the one established for the former Yugoslavia. It further inquires into its jurisprudence and reflects critically on the ICTR's approach to serious violations of IHL under Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. / Jurisprudence / LL. M. (Law)

L’analyse des relations entre le gouvernement intérimaire rwandais et la communauté internationale durant le génocide de 1994 met en évidence la primauté du facteur politique voire géopolitique sur la prise en compte de considérations strictement juridiques et humanitaires de la part de l’ONU et des États tiers les plus impliqués dans cette crise (Belgique, France, États-Unis). La marginalisation progressive du gouvernement intérimaire sur la scène internationale, au moment où il sollicite une aide extérieure pour mettre fin aux massacres, ne s’est pas accompagnée d’un renforcement des effectifs et du mandat de la Mission des Nations Unies pour l’Assistance au Rwanda (MINUAR), qui constituait pourtant la principale demande des autorités rwandaises au Conseil de sécurité. Ce désengagement de la communauté internationale s’est effectué au détriment de la sécurité et de la protection des populations civiles menacées. Dans le même temps, la criminalisation de ce gouvernement a contribué à faire entériner l’acceptation d’une issue militaire au conflit souhaitée par la rébellion du Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR), au mépris des accords de paix et de partage du pouvoir d’Arusha signés en 1993. La présomption de culpabilité à l’égard du camp gouvernemental a par la suite fortement impacté la justice internationale, le Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda (TPIR) ayant échoué dans sa mission consistant à juger tous les auteurs de crimes commis en 1994 et à favoriser la réconciliation nationale, du fait de son manque d’impartialité et d’indépendance tant au niveau des poursuites et de l’instruction que du rendu de ses jugements et de leur pleine application. / An analysis of relations between the interim government of Rwanda and the international community during the genocide of 1994 demonstrates how political, even geopolitical, factors were given priority over strictly judicial and humanitarian considerations by the UN and the third-party states most implicated in this crisis (Belgium, France, the USA). The progressive marginalisation of the interim government on the international scene, at the time when it was soliciting external help to put a stop to the massacres, did not see a reinforcement of staff or of the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), which nonetheless constituted the principal demand of the Rwandan authorities to the Security Council.This disengagement on the part of the international community happened to the detriment of the security and protection of the civil population under threat. At the same time the criminalisation of this government contributed to the endorsement of a military outcome to the conflict ; the outcome desired by the rebellion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), contravening the Arusha Accords signed in 1993. The presumption of guilt attached to the government camp subsequently had a strong impact on international justice, as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) had failed in its mission of judging all the perpetrators of crimes committed in 1994, and of favorising national reconciliation, due to its lack of impartiality and independence as much at the level of investigation and prosecution as at the level of the delivery of the judgments and their enactment.

International crimes prosecutions have become more common since 1993, both domestically and at international courts and tribunals. The advance of this norm confronts realist state interests causing debate about the norm's status. Kathryn Sikkink views a norm as cascading when enough states adopt it to cause international influence, without domestic pressure, to procure levels of conformity. This thesis considers the degree of conformity by observing the level of case selection independence to determine whether this norm is cascading. By identifying the jurisdictional and functional elements of case selection independence, I develop a framework for observing the interface between politics and law. While Sikkink errs towards the quantity of international crimes prosecutions, I focus on the quality. This project examines case selection independence at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court, in Uganda. The project considers whether case selection has become more or less independent at these courts - whether the norm of international crimes prosecution has cascaded or contracted. In observing the various case selection independence elements I attempt to explain the observed cascades and contractions at each court. I then consider whether a cascade or contraction occurred during the period of the courts' collective design and function. The research qualitatively observes a cumulative justice contraction. The research observes a combination of factors affecting case selection independence, including shifts in power dynamics between and among weak and powerful states, increasing state sophistication in international court engagement, a shift in jurisdiction triggering actors and forums, and realist state co-option of norm entrepreneurs via endearing explanation of independence-diminishing policies.

Univ., Diss.--Köln, 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [387] - 413.