Killing of certain named or described persons

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Extermination \| Definition \| Killing of certain named or described persons	Appeal Judgement - 13.12.2004	NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A)
517. In finding that an element of the crime of extermination was the “killing of certain named or described persons”[1] the Trial Chamber purported to be following the Akayesu Trial Judgement,[2] which it found had since been followed in Rutaganda and Musema.[3] More recently, this element was also stated in the Niyitegeka Trial Judgement.[4] In other judgements issued by ICTR Trial Chambers “certain named or described persons” has not been considered to be an element of the crime of extermination.[5] Further, none of the judgements of the ICTY which have considered the charge of extermination has identified killing “certain named or described persons” to be an element of the crime of extermination.[6] 518. The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that customary international law does not consider a precise description or designation by name of victims to be an element of the crime of extermination. […] 522. […] the Appeals Chamber finds that the crime of extermination requires proof that the accused participated in a widespread or systematic killing or in subjecting a widespread number of people or systematically subjecting a number of people to conditions of living that would inevitably lead to death, and that the accused intended by his acts or omissions this result. Applying this definition, the Trial Chamber erred in law by interpreting the requirement of “killing of certain named or described persons” to be an element of the crime of extermination. See also paras. 518-521. show footnotes [1] Trial Judgement, para. 813 citing Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 592. [2] Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 592. [3] Trial Judgement, n. 1154. It must be noted that this definition was not challenged on appeal in Rutaganda and Musema. [4] Niyitekega Trial Judgement, para. 450. [5] Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras. 142-147; Bagilishema Trial Judgement para. 89; Semanza Trial Judgement, paras. 340-463; Kajelijeli Trial Judgement, paras. 891-893; Media Trial Judgement, para. 1044; Kamuhanda Trial Judgement, paras. 691-695. [6] Krstić Trial Judgement, paras. 495-505; Vasiljević Trial Judgement, paras. 216-233; Stakić Trial Judgement, paras. 638-661. Although the definition in the Akayesu Judgement is mentioned in the Krstić Judgement, it should be noted, however, that the Trial Chamber in Krstić did not endorse this definition and preferred to make its own assessment to determine the underlying elements of extermination. It seems, moreover, that the Trial Chamber in Krstić decided on the need for identification of the victims (para. 499) as a mere requirement of identification of the victims as civilians. Download full document		ICTR Statute Article 3(b) ICTY Statute Article 5(b)