On 11 December 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was opened for signature. Ethiopia became the first state to deposit the treaty on 1 July 1949. Ethiopia was also among the very few countries that incorporated the convention in its national law immediately— as early as the 1950s.[1] The treaty came into force and closed for signature on 12 January 1951. Since then, states that did not sign the treaty can now only accede to it. The instrument of ratification, accession, or succession is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations
As of June 2024, 153 states have ratified or acceded to the treaty, most recently Zambia in April 2022. One state, the Dominican Republic, has signed but not ratified the treaty.
Art. 5: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Art. 6: Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Art. 7 Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Austrian law classifies all acts intended to annihilate a national, ethnic or religious group partially or in its entirety, create circumstances suitable to cause such events, create sterility in the group or other measures intended to prevent wilful procreation, or forcefully abducting children of said group to integrate them into another as genocide, with a statutory sentence of life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit such acts carries a penalty of one to ten years imprisonment.
Law on serious violations of international humanitarian law, 10 February 1999.[9]
In 1993 Belgium had adopted universal jurisdiction, allowing prosecution of genocide, committed by anybody in the world. The practice was widely applauded by many human rights groups, because it made legal action possible to perpetrators who did not have a direct link with Belgium, and whose victims were not Belgian citizens or residents. Ten years later in 2003, Belgium repealed the law on universal jurisdiction (under pressure from the United States). However, some cases which had already started continued. These included those concerning the Rwandan genocide, and complaints filed against the Chadian ex-President Hissène Habré.[10]
In a Belgium court case lodged on 18 June 2001 by 23 survivors of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, the prosecution alleged that Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defence minister (and Israel's Prime Minister in 2001–2006), as well as other Israelis committed a number of crimes including genocide,[11] because "all the constituent elements of the crime of genocide, as defined in the 1948 Convention and as reproduced in article 6 of the ICC Statute and in article 1§1 of the law of 16 June 1993, are present".[12] This allegation was not tested in Belgium court because on 12 February 2003 the Court of Cassation (Belgian Supreme Court) ruled that under international customary law, acting heads of state and government can not become the object of proceedings before criminal tribunals in foreign state (although for the crime of genocide they could be the subject of proceedings of an international tribunal).[13][14] This ruling was a reiteration of a decision made a year earlier by the International Court of Justice on 14 February 2002.[15] Following these ruling in June 2003 the Belgian Justice Ministry decided to start a procedure to transfer the case to Israel.[16]
The Helmet Massacre of the Tikuna people took place in 1988, and was initially treated as homicide. Since 1994 it has been treated by the Brazilian courts as a genocide. Thirteen men were convicted of genocide in 2001. In November 2004 at the appeal before Brazil's federal court, the man initially found guilty of hiring men to carry out the genocide was acquitted, and the other men had their initial sentences of 15–25 years reduced to 12 years.[19]
In a news letter published on 7 August 2006 the Indianist Missionary Council reported that: "In a plenary session, the [Brazilian] Supreme Federal Court (STF) reaffirmed that the crime known as the Haximu Massacre [perpetrated on the Yanomami Indians in 1993][20] was a genocide and that the decision of a federal court to sentence miners to 19 years in prison for genocide in connection with other offenses, such as smuggling and illegal mining, is valid. It was a unanimous decision made during the judgement of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 351487 today, the 3rd, in the morning by justices of the Supreme Court".[21] Commenting on the case the NGOSurvival International said "The UN convention on genocide, ratified by Brazil, states that the killing 'with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group' is genocide. The Supreme Court's ruling is highly significant and sends an important warning to those who continue to commit crimes against indigenous peoples in Brazil."[20]
In 2003 the transitional parliament in Burundi passed a law, introduced to parliament by the Burundian Foreign Minister Therence Sinunguruzaa, chiefly aimed at preventing genocide.[24]
Act on genocide and war crimes, Article 318 on Advocating Genocide.[4]
In Canada the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act makes it an offence under Canadian law to commit genocide, whether inside or outside Canada. A person may be charged under this law if, at the time of the crime, the perpetrator was a Canadian citizen or was employed by Canada, if the victim was a Canadian citizen or a citizen of a country allied to Canada, if the perpetrator was a citizen of, or employed by, a country that Canada was engaged in armed conflict with or if, at any time after committing the crime, the perpetrator enters Canadian territory.
Genocide has been criminalized as a separate crime in Finland since 1995 and carries a penalty from 4 years to life sentence. In addition to actual killing, the description of the crime (joukkotuhonta) covers also cultural assimilation by means of separating children from their original national, ethnic, racial or religious group.[37] Attempted genocide or planning it are punishable. Genocide, as a number of other crimes of international nature is inside Finnish universal jurisdiction, but under Chapter 1, Section 12 of the Criminal Code, incidents of it abroad may not be investigated unless the Prosecutor General gives an order to do this.[38]
Prior to the 2007 ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case German courts handed down several convictions for genocide during the Bosnian War.
Novislav Djajić was indicted for participation in genocide, but the Bavarian Higher Regional Court failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had intended to commit genocide. He was found guilty of 14 cases of murder and one case of attempted murder, receiving a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.[42] At Djajic's appeal on 23 May 1997, the Bavarian Appeals Court found that acts of genocide were committed in June 1992, though confined within the administrative district of Foča.[43]
The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf, in September 1997, handed down a genocide conviction against Nikola Jorgić, a Bosnian Serb from the Doboj region who was the leader of a paramilitary group located in the Doboj region. He was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment for his involvement in genocidal actions that took place in regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, other than Srebrenica.[44]
"On 29 November 1999, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf condemned Maksim Sokolović to 9 years in prison for aiding and abetting the crime of genocide and for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions".[45]
Act Implementing the Conv. on Genocide, 2 July 1964.[4]
Dutch law restricts prosecutions for genocide to its nationals. On December 23, 2005, a Dutch court ruled in a case brought against Frans van Anraat for supplying chemicals to Iraq, that "[it] thinks and considers legally and convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the genocide conventions as an ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion: that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq" and because he supplied the chemicals before 16 March 1988, the date of the Halabja poison gas attack, he is guilty of a war crime but not guilty of complicity in genocide.[47][48]
Article 607 of the Código Penal, Ley Orgánica 10/1995, 23 November.[52][53]
In June 2003 Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón jailed Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, (also known as Miguel Angel Cavallo), a former Argentine naval officer, extradited from Mexico to Spain pending his trial on charges of genocide and terrorism relating to the years of Argentina's military dictatorship, under a special case of universal jurisdiction.[54][55] On 29 February 2008, the Spanish agreed to extradite Cavallo to Argentina where he is charged with crimes against humanity. He still faces a trial in Spain on genocide charges at some later date.[56][57]
After a 2005 court ruling, Spanish judges' right to use universal jurisdiction to investigate and try foreigners suspected of genocidal acts committed outside Spain was – temporarily – strengthened.[58] Accordingly, on 7 July 2006, six Gutamelan military officials, among them Efraín Ríos Montt and Oscar Humberto Mejia, were formally charged as part of a case began in 1999 by Nobel peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchú over war crimes they committed during the Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996)[59]
On 11 January 2006 it was also reported that the Spanish High Court would investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet.[60] The court proceedings in the case brought by the Madrid-based Committee to Support Tibet against several former Chinese officials was opened by the Judge on 6 June 2006, and on the same day China denounced the Spanish court's investigation into claims of genocide in Tibet as an interference in its internal affairs and dismissed the allegations as "sheer fabrication".[61][62] The case was shelved in 2010, following another law passed in 2009 that restricted High Court investigations to those "involving Spanish victims, suspects who are in Spain, or some other obvious link with Spain". The judicial rules in place in Spain before passed this law had irritated many other countries such as Israel, whose officials had faced possible prosecution.[63]
Article 169 of the Lagboken (Act of 20 March 1963).[4]
In Sweden genocide was criminalized in 1964. According to the Swedish law any act intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such, and which is punished according to the criminal act is punished as genocide and carries a penalty from 4 years to life sentence. The Swedish legislation simply noticed that any severe common crime which is committed in order to destroy an ethnic group can be considered genocide, no matter what specific crime it is. Also intent, preparation or conspiring to genocide, and also failure to reveal such a crime is punishable as specified in penal code chapter 23, which is applicable to all crimes.[64]
The United Kingdom has incorporated the International Criminal Court Act into domestic law. It was not retroactive so it applies only to events after May 2001 and genocide charges can be filed only against British nationals and residents. According to Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee[66] "It means that British mercenaries who support regimes that commit war crimes can expect prosecution".[47] The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, altered the ICC ACT so that prosecutions could be taken against anyone in the UK from January 1991 — The date from which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had jurisdiction to try offences under the Tribunal's Statute adopted by the United Nations Security Council.[67]
United States federal law recognizes the crime of genocide where it was committed within the U.S. or by a national of the U.S.[68] A person found guilty of genocide can face the death penalty or life imprisonment. Persons found guilty of genocide may be denied entry or deported from the U.S.[69]
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.
Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person, regardless of where the alleged crime was committed and irrespective of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other connection to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens—that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of February 2024, 124 states are party to the statute. Among other things, it establishes court function, jurisdiction and structure.
The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 153 state parties as of June 2024.
A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a violent crime, especially homicide, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as anger or jealousy rather than as a premeditated crime. A high level of social and legal acceptance of crimes of passion has been historically associated with France from the 19th century to the 1970s, and until recently with Latin America.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent who is known for coining the term genocide and campaigning to establish the Genocide Convention. During the Second World War, he campaigned vigorously to raise international awareness of atrocities in Axis-occupied Europe. It was during this time that Lemkin coined the term "genocide" to describe Nazi Germany's extermination policies.
International criminal law (ICL) is a body of public international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. The core crimes under international law are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Impunity is the ability to act with exemption from punishments, losses, or other negative consequences. In the international law of human rights, impunity is failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress. Impunity is especially common in countries which lack the tradition of rule of law, or suffer from pervasive corruption, or contain entrenched systems of patronage, or where the judiciary is weak or members of the security forces are protected by special jurisdictions or immunities. Impunity is sometimes considered a form of denialism of historical crimes.
The age of consent for sexual activity refers to an age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another who is of the same age or older. This age varies by jurisdiction across South America, codified in laws which may also stipulate the specific activities that are permitted or the gender of participants for different ages. Other variables may exist, such as close-in-age exemptions.
Between 1941 and 1945, the government of Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale industrialised genocide in which approximately six million Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was fabricated or has been exaggerated. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial as a whole, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine have also banned Nazi symbols. Additionally, any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.
An atrocity crime is a violation of international criminal law that falls under the historically three legally defined international crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is widely regarded as a fourth mass atrocity crime by legal scholars and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field, despite not yet being recognized as an independent crime under international law.
Capital punishment in Montenegro was first prescribed by law in 1798. It was abolished on 19 June 2002. The last execution, by shooting, took place on 29 January 1981, and the two last death sentences were pronounced on 11 October 2001. Montenegro is bound by the following international conventions prohibiting capital punishment : Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Protocols No. 6 and No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 26 of the Montenegrin Constitution (2007) that outlawed the death penalty states: "In Montenegro, capital punishment punishment is forbidden”.
Armenian law, that being the modern Legal system of Armenia, is a system of law acted in Armenia.
Capital punishment in Bangladesh is a legal form of punishment for anyone who is over 16, however in practice it would not apply to people under 18. Crimes that are currently punishable by death in Bangladesh are set out in the Penal Code 1860. These include waging war against the State, abetting mutiny, giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death, murder, assisted suicide of a child, attempted murder of a child, and kidnapping. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides that a person awarded the death penalty "be hanged by the neck until he is dead." For murder cases, the Appellate Division requires trial courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the death penalty is warranted.
The Islamic Republic of Iran signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1991 and ratified it in 1994. Upon ratification, Iran made the following reservation: "If the text of the Convention is or becomes incompatible with the domestic laws and Islamic standards at any time or in any case, the Government of the Islamic Republic shall not abide by it."
Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".
Sexual consent plays an important role in laws regarding rape, sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence. In a court of law, whether or not the alleged victim had freely given consent, and whether or not they were deemed to be capable of giving consent, can determine whether the alleged perpetrator is guilty of rape, sexual assault or some other form of sexual misconduct.
Illicit enrichment generally refers to a situation in which a person has enjoyed some sort of wealth that cannot or has not been justified as coming from a legitimate source of income. The exact definitions for illicit enrichment, and the terminology used to describe the concept, vary considerably between international legal instruments and domestic laws.
Capital punishment in Chile is legally sanctioned, albeit with significant limitations. Since its abolition for civilian offenses in 2001, its application has been restricted to military personnel convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during wartime. This places Chile among the seven countries globally that have abolished capital punishment solely for ordinary crimes.
↑ On the date that the Chinese Republic ratified the treaty (July 20, 1949), it was recognized by the United States and other nations as the sole legitimate government of China, and it was a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, holding a veto power
↑ "The Case Against The Accused". indictsharon.net, the website of the International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra & Shatila. 2001. Archived from the original on 2 February 2002. ...Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defense minister and Israel's current prime minister, as well as other Israelis and Lebanese with war crimes...
↑ Bar Human Rights Committee "is the international human rights arm of the Bar of England and Wales. It is an independent body primarily concerned with the protection of the rights of advocates and judges around the world."
↑ UK: As originally enacted, the ICC Act 2001 presented two loopholes. First, those involved in the genocide in Rwanda and atrocities in the Former Yugoslavia could not be prosecuted, as the crimes happened before 2001. Second, the law applied only to people who were legally defined as resident in the UK, i.e.it did not apply to anyone on student, business, tourist, academic or skilled / domestic worker visas, or anyone who has been refused asylum under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention but who cannot be returned home for fear of persecution. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.70 amends the ICC Act 2001, and it closes these two loopholes (by adding s.65A and s.67A to the ICC Act). It gives jurisdiction from 1 January 1991, which is the date from which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had jurisdiction to try offences under the Tribunal's Statute adopted by the United Nations Security Council. The law has also been extended to cover the categories of persons not legally resident set out above (https://web.archive.org/web/20090730070348/http://www.aegistrust.org/Parliamentary-work/no-safe-haven-gaps-in-uk-law-on-international-crimes.html No safe haven: gaps in UK law on international crimes], Aegis Trust, Accessed 18 March 2010).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
