|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizaphan Ntakirutimana article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Actually (as the originator of the article has pointed out to me) from the judgement, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was found guilty of "genocide", not of "participating in genocide"... The judgement states:
In respect of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana:
- Count 1A Mugonero & Count 1 Bisesero: Guilty of Genocide
- [Count 1B Mugonero & Count 2 Bisesero: Alternative Count of Complicity in Genocide is inapplicable]
- Count 2 Mugonero & Count 3 Bisesero: Not Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Genocide
- Count 3 Mugonero & Count 4 Bisesero: Not Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity (Murder)
- Count 4 Mugonero & Count 5 Bisesero: Not Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity (Extermination)
- Count 5 Mugonero & Count 6 Bisesero: Not Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity (Other Inhumane Acts)
- Count 7 Bisesero: Not Guilty of Serious Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II
--Amortize 1 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
Thank you for that. You are right, I was in fact referring to the legal definition of "genocide". The relevant document in this regard is the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, whose Article 2 specifies what, in the eyes of International Criminal Law, should constitute genocide. It reads as follows:
"Article 2: Genocide
1. The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons committing genocide as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article or of committing any of the other acts enumerated in paragraph 3 of this Article.
2. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
3. The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide."
As you rightly point out, Ntakirutimana was found guilty of "genocide". "Participation in genocide" would, from a legal point of view, be misleading, as it may indicate that Ntakirutimana was not a principal perpetrator, but an aider and abettor in the crime. (In fact, he was acquitted of a charge of complicity in genocide, but was convicted of genocide).
Josias Bunsen 1 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
This article can be summarized as "he was convicted of genocide, but in fact he is innocent." The bulk of the text consists of reasons that the conviction was wrong. This is not a neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)