Human rights violations and genocide: Lessons of Rwanda

Introduction

Conflicts, from domestic or transnational to interethnic or international that have led to mass deaths, have always been an integral part of our history and human nature. Unfortunately, present nations and peoples are annihilating each other with the same cruelty as they used to in the tribes and clans of the primitive communal system.

In the late XX - early XXI century the bloody massacres of religious, ethnic or national groups took place in South Sudan, Syria, Iraq, and the Central African Republic. The genocide in Rwanda was the most horrific in terms of casualties and unprecedented brutality. Although a significant amount of conventional and other rules of international law have already been established to prevent and combat the crime of genocide, the practice shows that significant problems and difficulties occur considering the bringing perpetrators to justice. This requires a new scientific research into this phenomenon, elucidation of its nature and essence in a dynamic modern world, as well as the development of more effective means and methods of combating and opposing this ruthless crime.

Accordingly, the purpose of the article is a comprehensive analysis of the Rwandan genocide through the prism of human rights violations, elucidation of the nature and main features of genocide and also identifying ways to counter and prevent the crime of genocide.

Theoretical frame work

Referring to the legal doctrine, we can understand that in each field there are experts who have made the greatest contribution to the development of science in a particular field. At the same time, not many individuals who make general civilizational upheavals in science and change the worldview of scientists have received worldwide recognition. Regarding the creation of the concept of the crime of genocide, then, of course, such a figure is a famous Polish and American scientist Raphaël Lemkin (1944). It is this scientist who described the phenomenon of mass extermination of certain groups of the population on discriminatory grounds with the word "genocide", he is the developer of the relevant concept of this crime and the author of the first definition of this crime. R. Lemkin went down in history of international law not only as the author of the concept of the crime of genocide and punishment for it, but as a tireless fighter for its implementation in the practice of international relations.

In general, it should be noted that R. Lemkin is still imitated by other scientists, who continues to develop his concept.. His followers can be found in almost every corner of the world. In consideration of the fact that acts of genocide are still taking place in the world (experts count about 20 countries in the modern world that suffer from this crime), the problems of punishment for genocide, ways to counter and prevent it will be relevant for decades.

Foreign scholars are working quite fruitfully in this direction, especially representatives of those national, ethnic or religious groups against whom genocide crimes have been committed. Among the thorough studies of genocide conducted by foreign scholars, we should highlight: R. Ago, M. Arutyunyan, Y. Barsegov, etc.

In consideration of the fact that there is still a debate about the universal definition of genocide, a number of scholars have devoted their publications to this.

In particular, some scientists analyze in their publications the features of genocide, point out the shortcomings concepts set out in the 1946 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations, 1948) and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998 (1998 Rome Statute of the ICC). Most of them are in favor of the fact that the definition must include such a feature as the involvement, facilitation and organization of criminal acts of genocide by the state.

Undoubtedly, in Ukraine, which was once a victim of the Holodomor, there is also interest in the outlined issues, both among scholars of legal science and scholars from other fields of science, especially history and political science.

In particular, Doctor of Political Sciences V. Holovchenko (2017) analyzes the tragedies of genocide in the modern world and the problems of bringing criminals to justice for committing such acts.

From a political science perspective, N. Ivchik (2015) analyzes the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. In the historical plane, the origins of genocide, the causes, features and consequences of the policy of mass extermination of civilians in the twentieth century are explored by A. Kozitsky (2012).

Special attention should be paid to the domestic scientist M. Antonovich (2014), who in the light of the concept of human rights protection always touches on the issue of genocide of Ukrainians in her publications.

In many scientific publications, the scientist analyzes the events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine through the prism of international law, identifies the causes and preconditions of the Holodomor by the Soviet authorities, clearly classifies such acts as a crime of genocide and outlines the problems of international recognition. criminal action as genocide, and offers ways of effective cooperation at the international level in order to combat and prevent crimes of genocide in the modern world.

Methodology

Any process of cognition is based on the fundamental choice of methods that can play a decisive role in its course and determine its ideological core and purpose. Sometimes one of the methods is fully implemented in a specific context, but none can be recognized as exclusive and absolute. The use of a system of complementary legal, philosophical, general scientific and special methods, which are the theoretical and methodological basis of the study, allowed to obtain complete, objective and promising results from the standpoint of integrated, systematic and other approaches. First of all, the historical-legal method was used, which allowed to consider in historical retrospect the origins of the phenomenon of genocide, to find out the causes and motives of mass extermination of certain groups of the population. The comparative method of research allowed to determine the general and specific features of the crime of genocide. The application of the logical-semantic method allowed to clarify the conceptual apparatus used in international criminal law, in particular, the definition of "crime of genocide" was given. In addition to the above, other research methods were also used: formal-dogmatic - to interpret the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, 1945 Statute of the UN, 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC, 1994 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; method of analysis - to study the concept, theoretical approaches of specialists in international law.

Results and Discussion

Country Context

Unfortunately, Rwanda is probably best known for one horrible thing: "the 1994 genocide when the world stood by while upward of 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu representatives were killed" (Abbott, Dixon & Malunda, 2016, 561-581).

The extremely brutal events that took place in Rwanda in Central Africa during the spring of 1994 shocked the whole world. Unprecedented barbarism, mass killings and bullying of the Tutsi people under the leadership of the interim Rwandan authorities and the army, which gained power after the plane with President Juvénal Habyarimana was shot down on 6 April 1994, attracted the attention of almost all international community and received considerable criticism and condemnation from its side.

Time has passed and currently certain researchers are beginning to deny the genocide in Rwanda and more and more actively are putting forward the ideas accusing the civil war and the innocence of the formerly government. Denial of genocide is an ancient tradition that conventionally accompanies the history. The perpetrators or their followers are trying to cover up the mass purge, to bring them under a different qualification, trying to misinform the public, confuse pseudo-evidence and hide the criminality of the government policy. It is worth mentioning the genocide of Armenians in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire, which the Turks still do not confess, or the problem of identifying the Holodomor of Ukrainians in 1932-1933 under the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union. Naturally, no one wants to take responsibility for the massacres. As for Rwanda, Laetitia Tran Ngoc (2020) rightly believes, "Some 26 years after the events unfolded, research on the history of Rwanda's genocide is only just the beginning".

There is no doubt that the 1994 massacres in Rwanda should be classified as genocide. This statement is supported by the clear evidence. One ethnic group physically exterminated another solely because of the fact that it belonged to a certain group. Such intolerance and preconception is the product of a long-running policy in Rwanda aiming to divide the country.

Rwanda's central military government instructed local authorities to destroy the Tutsis and distributed weapons. In addition, there was an active reinforcement among ordinary citizens to encourage the mass killings of Tutsis and moderate Hutu representatives. Special detachments were organized, which committed murders. Also the Media was used quite effectively. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a Rwandan radio station which broadcast from 8 July 1993 to 31 July 1994. Widely listened to by the general population, it projected racist propaganda against Tutsis, moderate Hutus, Belgians, and the United Nations mission UNAMIR. It is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur. The results show that the broadcasts had a significant impact on participation in killings by both military groups and ordinary civilians. An estimated 51,000 perpetrators, or approximately 10 percent of the overall violence, can be attributed to the station (Yanagizawa-Drott & David, 2014).

Statistical data about the number of killed by Rwanda confirmed the mass and the scale of malicious acts - for 100 days it’s been killed more than 800,000 Tutsi.

Why have such barbarisms, which are incompatible with the now proclaimed democratic values, always accompanied the history of mankind?

Historical origins of genocide and its causes

One can agree with V.A. Ohayan (2016)., one of the researchers of the phenomenon of genocide, that the history of mankind is the history of genocide. Without supporting such an extreme opinions, at the same time it is possible to partially support such a point of view. Mass killings of civilians were recorded during most of the armed conflicts (Harutyunyan, 2009). Awareness of the tragic events of World Wars I and II, as well as other armed conflicts in human history has resulted in the recognition of genocide as a crime that violates international law and contradicts moral principles.

One of the pressing issues in the process of genocide research is why for a long time there was no way to bring the perpetrators to justice at either the national or international level. And in general, the criminality of such acts was also not confessed. It was believed that mass cleansing of the population in a country has always been considered as an internal affair. These two issues however seem to be closely connected. First, it must be assumed that in order to state the grounds for prosecution, it was necessary to legally recognize the criminality of such acts. After all, the long-known principle of "nullum crimen sine lege" stipulates that only criminal law determines which socially dangerous act is a crime (Zelinskaya, 2017). Secondly, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the crime of genocide - its commission is possible with the support of such actions by the state or directly as the implementation of criminal policy of the state itself. In the early stages of statehood, such acts were perceived as a normal practice of liberating the territory from certain undesirable groups of the population, later in the process of forced colonization, genocide was also practiced. In addition, until the late Middle Ages, the world was ruled by absolutism. It is surely difficult to imagine a situation where the monarch himself would declare his own orders criminal. Therefore, the root causes of the lack of normative bases for prosecuting genocide are the historical processes of formation and development of statehood in the world under conditions of absolutism.

As a result of the bourgeois revolutions of the late Middle Ages in Europe and the struggle of the North American states for independence, humanity began to assert new values - freedom, equality and justice. The idea of natural human rights is reflected in the texts of the first constitutions (the USA, France). The priority is no longer the state but the man, the individual.

Such progressive processes marked the first steps towards the establishment of democratic values and standards. Under the auspice of the League of Nations, certain actions were being completed to protect the rights of minorities, which can certainly be seen as the first steps towards laying the groundwork at the international level for the formation of a mechanism to combat genocide (Mytsyk, 2004). After World War II, the baton for the protection of human rights, including the rights of minorities, was taken up by the United Nations, one of the activities of which was to combat international crimes, including the crime of genocide. Thus, for the first time within the UN, genocide was recognized as an international crime. UN General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) (1946) stated that “Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups ... such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law… The punishment of the crime of genocide is a matter of international concern» (Mohonchuk, 2011). This can be considered a major breakthrough in the development of international law, as it gave an impulse to the development of the concept of international crimes, which primarily include genocide.

Why was humanity not willing to recognize the crime of genocide for so long? Analysis of the historical origins of genocide reveals that the reasons for the late legalization of the crime of genocide include: the rule of absolutism until the late Middle Ages, long-term rejection of the idea of natural human rights, fears of states about their possible responsibility and correspondingly its slow development. The implementation of the ideas of justice, humanity, equality and freedom in the practice of state-building, the enshrinement of human rights and international standards at the normative level, has allowed mankind to come to the realization of barbarism and shameful actions against physical destruction of certain groups of the population on certain grounds (national-ethnic, racial or religious) and, accordingly, the formation of conceptual and international legal bases for the prosecution of the crime of genocide.

At the level of an international treaty, genocide was declared an international crime on 9 December 1948, after the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations, 1948) (hereinafter - the 1948 Genocide Convention). Even before the Convention was adopted, the Nuremberg Trials, which took place on 8 August 1945, raised the question of accusing Hitler's military criminals of committing the crimes of genocide as crimes against humanity (Zelinskaya, 2011). During the trial, some prosecutors (Britain, France), appealing to R. Lemkin's book on genocide (the author of the term and the founder of the concept), already used this term.

After Nuremberg and the adoption of the Genocide Convention, activities in the international arena to combat the crimes of genocide have intensified considerably. Important international legal acts were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations, proclaiming the right of minorities to equal development, respect for their rights and defining mechanisms for the protection of their rights (1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women etc.).

The emergence of such a strong regulatory framework to combat the crime of genocide is displaying an encouraging result. Consequently, after the creation in the 90's XX century of  International military tribunals in the former Yugoslavia (in 1993) and Rwanda (in 1994) (hereinafter - ICTY and ICTR) respectively, it can be argued that for the first time at the international level individuals were prosecuted for genocide on the basis of international norms of criminal law. The activities of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda laid the groundwork for the establishment of a permanent international institution under the jurisdiction of the crime of genocide, 1998 International Criminal Court (ICC) (Kivalov, 2011). Established international tribunals have demonstrated that the responsibility for genocide is not ephemeral, but rather a reality nowadays. Therefore, in the 21st century, humanity is witnessing the acts of genocide. For example, ethnic cleansing in Darfur has killed more than 300,000 people. This suggests that the Rwandan genocide is perhaps the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the early 21st century. Significantly, the motives for genocide have remained the same throughout history - national, racial or religious intolerance and hatred, the yearning of certain groups to establish hegemony by imposing their values, policies and ideologies. The experience of Rwanda once again confirms and demonstrates this. Psychologists and sociologists still cannot give an unambiguous answer to the question of why such criminal actions are part of human nature and society. For lawyers, one of the key issues in this aspect is the issue of counteraction and prevention, which is also related to finding out the motives of this crime. Currently, this issue is open and requires the consolidated efforts of various experts in terms of conducting comprehensive studies of the phenomenon of genocide.

Unfortunately, the recognition of the crime of genocide and the prosecution of the perpetrators does not mean the eradication of this phenomenon or the existence of an ideal mechanism for combating, counteracting and preventing in this area. On the example of Rwanda and other countries where the issue of prosecution for crime of genocide, we can see that there are many complications that arise at the stage of qualification of the crime of genocide by the perpetrators.

Definition of the crime of genocide

As is well known, acts of genocide are aimed primarily at the mass deprivation of life of national-ethnic, religious or racial groups. In other words, it can be called mass murder, for which there is now a severe punishment (both in national and international criminal law), because the direct object in this case is human life, which is the core of fundamental rights. The right for life is a natural, inalienable and inalienable right of every individual, a value that must be protected by the state. An arbitrary deprivation of life of a large number of people solely because of their belonging to a certain group is a cynical and cruel manifestation of inhumanity. Therefore, genocide is described as one of the most dangerous crimes against the security of mankind.

Universal legal definition of genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations, 1948) «genocide means any of the following acts committed with an intention 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 physical 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 ». A similar definition is reproduced in the statutes of the international military tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (art. 4) and Rwanda (art. 2), as well as in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (art. 6). This definition was based on the basic principles of the concept of the crime of genocide, developed by its founder Raphael Lemkin. The scientist claimed that the crime is: (1) barbarism, i.e. encroachment on the lives of a certain group of people or undermining the economic basis for the existence of these groups; (2) vandalism, i.e. destruction of cultural values (transferring of children from one group to another, prohibition and systematic removal of characteristic elements of culture of this group, prohibition of use of native language, destruction of books in native language, destruction of museums, schools, historical monuments, cult and other institutions, cultural objects of the group or a ban on their use (Harutyunyan, 2009). From the above we can conclude that Raphael Lemkin focused on two points in the analysis of acts of genocide - the liquidation of the group by killing its members and the actual disappearance of the community by erasing its characteristic cultural differences (Barsegov, 1990). The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Lemkin & Raphaël, 1944), where genocide was described as a well-thought-out coordinated plan of action to destroy national and ethnic groups by destroying political and civic institutions, culture, language, national identity, religion, economic foundations of their existence, as well as depriving them of personal security, freedom, health, dignity and lives of people belonging to these groups. It was important to state that genocide was not directed against specific individuals, but against a specific group as such without discrimination, that is, actions of this nature should be committed against members of a community only because they belonged to it. These ideas formed the basis of the text of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Despite the universal nature of the definition of genocide contained in this Convention and its recognition by the international community, it has significant shortcomings and is vulnerable because it does not cover all the main features of this crime. This is recurrently pointed out by lawyers who study the issue of genocide.

The essence and nature of genocide as an international crime, analysis of the practice of its commission in many countries where it took place, including Rwanda, allows claiming that such a mass murder, seriously and clearly organized with a total violation of human rights, cannot take place outside the state without the state system of implementing such a policy. Genocide is not committed by accident. The acts of genocide clearly stipulate the guilty intent and use of a state mechanism that has all the necessary human and material resources to implement such a plan. Andre Nollkaemper (2009), a supporter of the concept of a "criminal system", notes that genocide is not possible without the involvement of a large organization. Analyzing the case of the Sudanese province of Darfur, the professor points out that it is hard to believe that Ahmad Mohammed Harumi, a former minister, committed international crimes on his own in Sudan, for which he was convicted. The scientist considers the situation similar to the situation of another convict - the leader of "Janjaweed". In his report to the UN Security Council in 2008, the ISS prosecutor concluded that the two individuals were part of a much larger organization and had committed crimes by mobilizing the entire state apparatus. Antony Weiss-Wendt (2008) emphasizes that genocide requires intentional intent to do so mainly by the government (government), accompanied by a record violation of human rights, the state's interest in mass extermination can be proven by reconstructing the chain of command to commit certain actions that aimed at the implementation of acts of genocide. K.A. Vazhna (2017) also emphasizes that the main source of mass violence is the actions of the highest echelons of power, without the support and consent of the state, this crime is impossible on such a massive scale. The state has a number of necessary tools in its arsenal to achieve this goal. This feature is one of the key in terms of revealing the essence of genocide, because it allows to distinguish this act from ordinary criminal murder and shows, given the object of encroachment - life, health of a certain group of people - and motives - national, ethnic, racial or religious intolerance, hostility - its increased social danger.

Preventing and combating the crime of genocide: New horizons

The consequences of the genocide in Rwanda - a large number of victims (Cruvelier y Rujiririza, 2019), mutilated and devastated destinies, the destruction in all spheres of public and state life, an extremely acute economic crisis, as a result famine and revenge,  once again show the world all the horrors of genocide and confirm the thesis that genocide can be considered a "crime of crimes." After the genocide in Rwanda, there was an even greater split between the population - the perpetrators and the victims - two opposing camps, the former preferring to avoid responsibility, the latter - being overwhelmed with a longing for revenge. The existing judicial system however was not able to handle a large number of cases.

Given the consequences of the genocide in Rwanda and the difficulty in bringing those responsible to justice, the question arises as to the effectiveness of the existing mechanism for combating, opposing and preventing the crime of genocide. Undoubtedly, this mechanism works, but with some difficulties. First of all, the universal definition of the crime of genocide contained in the 1948 Genocide Convention needs to be clarified. The introduction of such a feature as the commission of acts of genocide with the assistance or direct participation of the state (discussed above). Genocide, and this clearly illustrates the experience of Rwanda, requires significant resources, time and planning. It is the state that can involve central and local public authorities, law enforcement and military agencies, the media to implement its criminal policy, as well as ordinary citizens, offering them various privileges. Therefore, the subject of liability for the crime of genocide must be a state that must bear both political and material international legal responsibility. Apologies, assurances that no more such crimes will be committed in the state, rehabilitation of victims, payment of compensation to victims, their reinstatement in jobs, positions, punishment of the guilty, etc. - all this must be done by the state. Roberto Ago (1988), special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on International Law of 1969-1980 on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States, once wrote about his disappointment with the 1948 Genocide Convention, pointing out that it did not do the most important thing - it is clearly defined that genocide is a crime of the state and the result of genocide should be the sanctions against the state.

The second important point in the fight against, counteraction and prevention of the crime of genocide is the intensification of the work on the signing by the states of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The next important point is the intensification of work on the signing of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. As the practice of Rwanda shows, in the process of bringing those responsible to justice for the crime of genocide, the national judicial system has faced numerous problems (a large number of defendants, the inability to provide adequate procedural guarantees to the accused, in particular the lack of defense counsel in many cases).

Conclusion

Nowadays the prohibition of genocide is an imperative of general international law, and therefore the commission of genocide is an international crime. Before coming to this conclusion, humanity needed to realize the cruelty and barbarism of such acts, to feel their negative consequences. However, the recognition of the crime of genocide does not put an end to this issue and does not mean the eradication of this phenomenon from modern reality. Unfortunately, the bloody events in Rwanda in 1994 showed the world how dangerous acts of genocide are and how important the efforts to combat and prevent this crime are.

It is also noteworthy to understand that the Rwandan lesson of genocide reaffirmed the thesis that genocide is impossible without the involvement of a state mechanism. Therefore, the introduction of such a feature as one of the basic to the universal definition is urgent. This will allow to more fully implement the principle of inevitability of punishment for all perpetrators, to recognize the state as a subject of responsibility and thus will contribute to a more effective implementation of the preventive function in the international arena. After all, the realization by states that measures of international legal responsibility will be applied to the criminal policy of genocide will stop them from such ill-considered steps. No state today can exist in isolation and fully realize its functions without being a full participant in international relations.

The combined efforts of all nations and peoples are needed to fight, combat and prevent the crime of genocide. Only joint efforts with the use of a variety of means to combat genocide can expect positive results. On the example of Rwanda, humanity has demonstrated that the fight against this negative phenomenon is effective. And while the genocide in Rwanda will never be fully tried, it was a unique and extraordinary judicial phenomenon in which Rwanda, in particular, refuted the popular belief that there could be no mass justice after a mass crime.