The prosecution of the crime of genocide: a comparative analysis of approaches between International and National legal systems

Abstract

This dissertation discusses the prosecution of genocide, the crime of crimes, in both international and national tandems. During the World War II and before the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the acts of destroying specific groups were prosecuted in Nuremberg by the International Military Tribunal, although under different names of crimes. After the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the international community has set up ad hoc international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute for grave international crimes including the crime of genocide. In addition to these tribunals, national courts such as the Spanish National Court have been involved in the prosecution of genocide. Two case studies are conducted which include the case of Akayesu before the ICTR and the case of Pinochet before Spanish and the UK courts. This study analyses the differences in both international and national prosecution and identifies rights of the accused and the victim which are affected. However, since the international and national legal systems adopt different laws and procedures, disparities emerge between them in prosecuting genocide though the crime is one and the same. Thus, the study recommends that there should be standard laws and procedures for the international and the national prosecution of genocide so that the rights of the accused and the victim are protected. The permanent and generally accepted International Criminal Court should be the standard model for international and national tribunals.