Issue
Is France internationally responsible for providing aid through military training, supply of weapons and assistance to the Hutu run Government of Rwanda, which then commited genocide against the Tutsi minority?
Brief answer
Yes, France is internationally responsible for aiding the Hutu led Government of Rwanda that perpetrated the Tutsi massacre. Such acts were in complicity of genocide as defined by art. 3.e of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter, "the Convention")[1], and are attributible to the French State in accordance to art. 4 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (hereinafter, "the ILC Articles)[2]. France commited an internationally wrongful act, and is therefore internationally responsible, to the extent of art. 2 of the ILC Articles and art. 9 of the Convention.
Facts
From April to July 1994, the Hutu run government of Rwanda perpetrated the killing of an estimate of 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, with the intent of destroying in whole the Tutsi ethnical group.
Evidence of French complicity and involvement has emerged during proceedings before the United Nation's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The evidence indicates that French troops trained the Interahamwe militia of Hutu extremists; that France supplied shipments of arms well in advance of the genocide in anticipation of such a massacre; and that the French government has refused to prosecute Hutu members who fled to France following the massacre.
It has been alleged that the French had positions of command in the armed forces who committed the genocide, and they directly participated in operations by putting up roadblocks to identify people by ethnic origin, punishing the Tutsis and supporting the Hutus. Witnesses to the genocide also say French troops deployed in Rwanda lured Tutsis from hideouts to villages where they were killed. They further contend that the French, while implementing Operation Turquoise, allowed Hutus into the humanitarian camps to slaughter the Tutsis.
Sources suggest the 1994 genocide was a result of France seeking to oppose English-speaking interests from prevailing in its region of influence, which include Rwanda and neighbouring countries.
Discussion
In order to establish France´s international responsibility, it must be shown that France commited an internationally wongful act.[3] Article 2 of the ILC Articles states that there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
The principle of attribution for the purposes of State responsibility in international law follows the principle of the unity of the State entails that the acts or omissions of all its organs should be regarded as acts or omissions of the State.[4] The reference to a "State organ" covers all the individual or collective entities which make up the organization of the State and act on its behalf in such capacity.[5]. This covers, for the case at hand, the acts of the French officials and armed forces, e.i: training of Hutu military forces, supplying weapons and participation in certain military operations. Hence, all acts of French officials and military forces are to be attributed to the State of France, even if they had acted ultra vires.[6]
The second condition for the existence of an internationally wrongful act is that the conduct should constitute a breach of an international obligation of that State. In the case at hand, the international obligation assumed by France arises from art. 3.e of the Convention: the prohibition of complicity to genocide.
The main breach, the genocide perpetrated by the Rwandan Government, has long been ascertained. What needs to be established is whether the conduct of France amounts to be categorized as "complicity", as provided by the Convention. As the international obligation of abstaining from complicity to genocide arises from the Convention itself as a primary norm, the principle of lex specialis applies to the present case; this means that the general principles of participation established in art 16 of the ILC Articles are only of subsidiary appliccation.
As for the complicity to genocide, prior jurisprudence has defined the term complicity as aiding and abetting, instigating, and procuring. "[C]omplicity to commit genocide in Article 2(3)(e) refers to all acts of assistance or encouragement that have substantially contributed to, or have had a substantial effect on, the completion of the crime of genocide.”[7] This definition accurately describes the participation of the French officials and armed forces in the conflict. The training of forces, the provision of weapons and paricipation in certain military operations can be deemed as a substantial contribution to the capabilities of the Rwandan governmenti n the massacre of Tutsis.
However, an accused is liable as an accomplice to genocide, only "if he knowingly aided or abetted or instigated one or more persons in the commission of genocide, while knowing that such a person or persons were committing genocide, even though the accused himself did not have the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”[8] It is not nessary to prove the subjective element of intention of the accomplice in cases of genocide; it is enough to prove the knowledge of the circumstances. The relevant case law has introduced a presumption of intention[9], where by the mere knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the genocide and the effective act of providing assistance, the intention of the accomplice is presumed.
It can be proven that France had knowledge of the intentions and actions of the Hutu run Government of Rwanda. There is enough evidence to support this conclusion; i.e. the training of Interahamwe militia, the supply of shipments of arms, the alleged participation in certain operations and the fact that the French government refused to prosecute Hutu members who fled to France following the massacre. The fact that France knew about the circumstances that led to the genocide, and still provided substantial aid to the perpetrators of such genocide, is sufficient to hold France internationally responsible for the breach of its international obligations under art. 3.e of the Convention.
Conclusion
The facts of the case lead to the conclusion that France, while having knowledge of the intentions and circumstances that led to the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsies, gave substantial assistance to the Hutu run Government of Rwanda. It is unnecessary to demonstrate that France had the intention to aid in genocide. Under the scope of the Convention, knowledge of the circumstances is sufficient to hold that France breached its international obligations under art. 3.e, and hold it internationally responsible for complicity to genocide.
Is France internationally responsible for providing aid through military training, supply of weapons and assistance to the Hutu run Government of Rwanda, which then commited genocide against the Tutsi minority?
Brief answer
Yes, France is internationally responsible for aiding the Hutu led Government of Rwanda that perpetrated the Tutsi massacre. Such acts were in complicity of genocide as defined by art. 3.e of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter, "the Convention")[1], and are attributible to the French State in accordance to art. 4 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (hereinafter, "the ILC Articles)[2]. France commited an internationally wrongful act, and is therefore internationally responsible, to the extent of art. 2 of the ILC Articles and art. 9 of the Convention.
Facts
From April to July 1994, the Hutu run government of Rwanda perpetrated the killing of an estimate of 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, with the intent of destroying in whole the Tutsi ethnical group.
Evidence of French complicity and involvement has emerged during proceedings before the United Nation's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The evidence indicates that French troops trained the Interahamwe militia of Hutu extremists; that France supplied shipments of arms well in advance of the genocide in anticipation of such a massacre; and that the French government has refused to prosecute Hutu members who fled to France following the massacre.
It has been alleged that the French had positions of command in the armed forces who committed the genocide, and they directly participated in operations by putting up roadblocks to identify people by ethnic origin, punishing the Tutsis and supporting the Hutus. Witnesses to the genocide also say French troops deployed in Rwanda lured Tutsis from hideouts to villages where they were killed. They further contend that the French, while implementing Operation Turquoise, allowed Hutus into the humanitarian camps to slaughter the Tutsis.
Sources suggest the 1994 genocide was a result of France seeking to oppose English-speaking interests from prevailing in its region of influence, which include Rwanda and neighbouring countries.
Discussion
In order to establish France´s international responsibility, it must be shown that France commited an internationally wongful act.[3] Article 2 of the ILC Articles states that there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
The principle of attribution for the purposes of State responsibility in international law follows the principle of the unity of the State entails that the acts or omissions of all its organs should be regarded as acts or omissions of the State.[4] The reference to a "State organ" covers all the individual or collective entities which make up the organization of the State and act on its behalf in such capacity.[5]. This covers, for the case at hand, the acts of the French officials and armed forces, e.i: training of Hutu military forces, supplying weapons and participation in certain military operations. Hence, all acts of French officials and military forces are to be attributed to the State of France, even if they had acted ultra vires.[6]
The second condition for the existence of an internationally wrongful act is that the conduct should constitute a breach of an international obligation of that State. In the case at hand, the international obligation assumed by France arises from art. 3.e of the Convention: the prohibition of complicity to genocide.
The main breach, the genocide perpetrated by the Rwandan Government, has long been ascertained. What needs to be established is whether the conduct of France amounts to be categorized as "complicity", as provided by the Convention. As the international obligation of abstaining from complicity to genocide arises from the Convention itself as a primary norm, the principle of lex specialis applies to the present case; this means that the general principles of participation established in art 16 of the ILC Articles are only of subsidiary appliccation.
As for the complicity to genocide, prior jurisprudence has defined the term complicity as aiding and abetting, instigating, and procuring. "[C]omplicity to commit genocide in Article 2(3)(e) refers to all acts of assistance or encouragement that have substantially contributed to, or have had a substantial effect on, the completion of the crime of genocide.”[7] This definition accurately describes the participation of the French officials and armed forces in the conflict. The training of forces, the provision of weapons and paricipation in certain military operations can be deemed as a substantial contribution to the capabilities of the Rwandan governmenti n the massacre of Tutsis.
However, an accused is liable as an accomplice to genocide, only "if he knowingly aided or abetted or instigated one or more persons in the commission of genocide, while knowing that such a person or persons were committing genocide, even though the accused himself did not have the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”[8] It is not nessary to prove the subjective element of intention of the accomplice in cases of genocide; it is enough to prove the knowledge of the circumstances. The relevant case law has introduced a presumption of intention[9], where by the mere knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the genocide and the effective act of providing assistance, the intention of the accomplice is presumed.
It can be proven that France had knowledge of the intentions and actions of the Hutu run Government of Rwanda. There is enough evidence to support this conclusion; i.e. the training of Interahamwe militia, the supply of shipments of arms, the alleged participation in certain operations and the fact that the French government refused to prosecute Hutu members who fled to France following the massacre. The fact that France knew about the circumstances that led to the genocide, and still provided substantial aid to the perpetrators of such genocide, is sufficient to hold France internationally responsible for the breach of its international obligations under art. 3.e of the Convention.
Conclusion
The facts of the case lead to the conclusion that France, while having knowledge of the intentions and circumstances that led to the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsies, gave substantial assistance to the Hutu run Government of Rwanda. It is unnecessary to demonstrate that France had the intention to aid in genocide. Under the scope of the Convention, knowledge of the circumstances is sufficient to hold that France breached its international obligations under art. 3.e, and hold it internationally responsible for complicity to genocide.
[1] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, entered into force 12 January 1951
[2] ILC, “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries” – 2001 Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (at para. 77). The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, will appear in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two (reflecting the final edited text of the commentaries).
[3] Article 1 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility states as a basic principle, that every internationally wrongful act of a State entails its international responsibility.
[4] ILC, “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries” – 2001, Commentary to art. 4, para 5.
[5] Ibid, Commentary to art. 4, para 1.
[6] Ibid, Commentary to art. 4, para 13.
[7] Semanza, (Trial Chamber), May 15, 2003, para. 393, 395, extracted from “Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity: Topical Digest of the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, Human Rights Watch 2004, page 31
[8] Musema, (Trial Chamber), January 27, 2000, para. 183; Bagilishema, (Trial Chamber), June 7, 2001, para. 71, extracted from “Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity: Topical Digest of the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, Human Rights Watch 2004, page 31
[9] See, B. Graefrath, “Complicity in the Law of International Responsibility”, Revue Belge de Droit International 2, 1996, pag. 370-380.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario