Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this study is to scrutinise, in particular, the legal bases of and decisions taken by various hybrid courts with regards to such consolidating or fragmenting effects on substantive international criminal law. The first section (Chapter 2), it will examine what is to be understood by the notion of a hybrid court. This will be followed by an analysis of the hybrid courts that have been established thus far. Furthermore, the advantages and reasons for which hybrid courts have been established in recent decades will be discussed, especially regarding their potential advantages as a transitional justice instrument. Moreover, disadvantages of hybrid courts and their deficiencies in the past will be addressed. Subsequently, the role of hybrid courts within the international legal system and their utility in the future will be discussed. This will include, on the one hand, the scope of the jurisdiction of hybrid courts in relation to other national and international criminal courts, especially vis-à-vis the ICC. On the other hand, it will be addressed whether hybrid courts will – or should – be established in the future, given the creation of the permanent ICC as well as the shortcomings of hybrid courts in the past. Against this background, the impact of hybrid courts on the further development of international criminal law will be assessed in the third section of the paper (Chapter 4). In this regard, the discussion will focus on a representative selection of hybrid courts, namely the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). It will be discussed how their legal bases as well as their jurisprudence relate to the previous state of international criminal law, and whether they constitute adverse diversifications or positive contributions to international criminal law. In a concluding section (Chapter 5), the results of the study will be analysed and possible correlations between the structural elements of hybrid courts and their impact on international criminal law will be discussed. Finally, further questions regarding the use of hybrid courts in the future will be addressed.

Gender-based violence (GBV) has been used as a tool of instilling fear, hatred and persecution during conflict situations. It is a fact that GBV takes place pre-conflict situations. Moreover, conflicts and wars only accelerate the rate at which GBV is committed. In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. These conflicts went down in history as conflicts where horrendous crimes were committed. As a result of the atrocities committed and the magnitude of victims, the international community with the assistance of the United Nations formed the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. These international tribunals were given the task of prosecuting the perpetrators of these crimes. Prior to the formation of these tribunals, the international community had experienced other wars whereby international tribunals were also formed to deal with the atrocities committed. However, this research only aims at comparatively analysing the ICTY, TCTR and the SCSL because these new tribunals were the first in experiencing the development of the prosecution of GBV. The former international tribunals did not effectively deal with gendered crimes therefore there was no precedent set in international law regarding the prosecutions of these crimes. The conflicts that occurred in the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone also saw the introduction of more brutal forms of GBV. These forms of GBV that developed forced the tribunals to change the way they prosecuted gender-based crimes because the nature and the magnitude at which the crimes were committed was massive. Forms of GBV that were earlier recognised such as rape and sexual violence were now being used as a means through which the perpetrators committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The comparative analysis between the ICTR, the ICTY and the SCSL also aims at showing how the different challenges and hurdles that these courts faced when prosecuting these crimes. The pitfalls that the tribunals experienced at the pre-trial phase are also investigated and critically analysed with the aim of drawing lessons about mistakes that should not be repeated in newer international tribunals. A comparative analysis will also be done on the different precedents that were set by the cases that were heard in these tribunals with the aim of showing how these tribunals have indeed contributed to the development of the prosecution of these types of crimes. Finally, recommendations will be made regarding how future international tribunals better deal with these crimes. The research paper also aims at creating awareness that these types of crimes must be treated differently and with caution because the effects that the victims suffer from last way after the conflicts and trials are over. Lessons must be carried from past prosecutions in order to correct and better improve the way in which the prosecutions are carried out and also the way in which the different victims are treated even after the prosecutions have been completed. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Public Law / unrestricted

Aujourd’hui, l’Afrique est sans aucun doute la partie du monde la plus affectée par la commission des crimes internationaux les plus graves. Pourtant, depuis des décennies, il existe des mécanismes juridiques visant à sanctionner les responsables des crimes qui heurtent la conscience humaine. Seulement, l’échec relatif de ces mécanismes peut pousser l’observateur à se demander s’il est possible de garantir la diffusion du droit international pénal sur le continent africain. Cette interrogation est loin d’être incongrue, car même si un nombre important d’états africains ont ratifié le Statut de Rome qui organise la répression du génocide, des crimes contre l’humanité, des crimes de guerre et même du crime d’agression, il n’en demeure pas moins que l’application de ce Statut dans les différents ordres juridiques concernés est très souvent compromise. La principale raison à cela c'est que, le droit international pénal ne tient pas forcément compte des particularismes juridiques des états qui ont pourtant la primauté de compétence, en vertu du principe de subsidiarité, pour sanctionner la commission des crimes internationaux selon les règles classiques de dévolution des compétences. De plus, il faut préciser que l’Afrique est le terrain de prédilection du pluralisme juridique qui favorise la juxtaposition de l’ordre juridique moderne et de l’ordre juridique traditionnel. Si le premier est en principe réceptif aux normes internationales pénales, le second qu’il soit musulman ou coutumier avec l’exemple des Gacaca rwandais, repose sur une philosophie juridique différente de celle du droit international pénal. Dans tous les cas, l’articulation du droit international pénal avec les ordres juridiques africains est une des conditions de sa diffusion. Cette articulation pourrait d’ailleurs être favorisée par le dialogue entre les juges nationaux et internationaux qui doivent travailler en bonne intelligence pour édifier un système international pénal ; d’où l’intérêt pour les états africains de favoriser une coopération effective avec les juridictions pénales internationales. Il va sans dire que, tout ceci ne sera possible qu’au sein des régimes politiques démocratiques capables de renoncer aux règles et pratiques juridiques anachroniques pour s’appuyer sur une politique criminelle pouvant favoriser, dans un avenir plus ou moins lointain, un véritable universalisme du droit international pénal. / Today, Africa is undoubtedly part of the world most affected by the commission of the most serious international crimes. Yet for decades, there are legal mechanisms to punish those responsible for crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. But the relative failure of these mechanisms can push the viewer to wonder if it is possible to ensure the dissemination of international criminal law on the African continent. This question is far from being incongruous, because even if a significant number of African states have ratified the Rome Statute that governs the fight against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression even, the fact remains that the application of the Statute in the different legal systems involved is often compromised. The main reason for this is that international criminal law does not necessarily take into account the legal peculiarities of the states that have yet the primacy of jurisdiction under the subsidiarity principle, to sanction the commission of international crimes by the conventional rules devolution of powers. In addition, it should be noted that Africa is the stomping ground of legal pluralism that promotes juxtaposition of the modern legal system and traditional law. If the first is normally receptive to criminal international standards, the second whether Muslim or customary with the example of the Rwandan Gacaca is based on a different legal philosophy from that of international criminal law. In all cases, the articulation of international criminal law with African legal systems is one of the conditions of release. This link could also be encouraged by the dialogue between national and international judges who must work in harmony to build an international criminal system; hence the need for African states to promote effective cooperation with international criminal courts. It goes without saying that all this will be possible only in democratic political systems which can waive the rules and legal practices anachronistic to press a criminal policy that can promote in a more or less distant future, a true universalism of international criminal law.