Enough is enough, SPDC! Let’s see in (ICC) court

Enough is enough, SPDC!

Let’s see in (ICC) court

Dr San Oo Aung

Kindly let me first explain the meanings of the above topic.

Enough is enough (Idiom) = this is now frequently used as a reprimand, warning someone off from persisting in an inappropriate or excessive course of action.

Let’s see (you) in court is now frequently used as a warning to someone who is doing injustice or in the wrong position that he would be sued in the relevant court of justice.

ICC = International Criminal Court = Permanent judicial body established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The court commenced operations on July 1, 2002; after the requisite number of countries (60) ratified the Rome Statute (some 140 countries signed the agreement). The ICC was established as a court of last resort to prosecute the most heinous offenses in cases where national courts fail to act. It is headquartered in The Hague.


Former UN Envoy to Myanmar Tan Sri Razali Ismail’s recent comments sealed the hope of persuading the SPDC Generals in a soft approach. He said, “The belief that constructive engagement with Myanmar was working was an illusion. Many people knew that the constructive engagement was not constructive because there was very little engagement. Only the Foreign Ministers (of Asean) insisted that the constructive engagement was working. It is an illusion they placed before their eyes and the Prime Minister (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) has burst the bubble of delusion,”

Malaysian PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi also acknowledged the failure of  ASEAN’s constructive engagement. He said, “The crackdown on protests in Myanmar shows that Asean’s constructive engagement with the military government of that country has failed.” He acknowledged that the statement from Asean (Association of South-East Asian Nations), which expressed revulsion over the violent force used against the demonstrators, was unprecedented because of its bluntness.

The military junta thought that they would be able to avoid prosecution by the UN, for their heinous actions because they believe that the UN is toothless, powerless and mandate-less, thanks to their veto wielding friends in UNSC.

 

Myanmar SPDC Government had stubbornly and repeatedly refused visa for_

  1. Mr. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

  2. Tan Sri Razali Ismail, United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Burma special   envoy  to Myanmar

  3. Even for Mr Ibrahim Gambari, they are reluctant and only sparingly giving visa.

  4. There were unconfirmed reports that they had even denied visa for Mr Ban Ki-moon.

 

 

 

US and EU leaders are campaigning for another UNSC resolution on Burma. Any UNSC resolution would be vetoed by the Russians and Chinese, by giving the excuse that they do not feel Burma, as a threat in the region and UNSC is not the proper forum or place to discuss Burma/Myanmar issue. As they are holding the veto power, there is no use to argue or reason with them any more.  Therefore,  instead of initiating a renewed attack at UNSC, we all need to request them to support the new resolution of UNSC to submit or propose the (ICC) International Criminal Court to accept the complaints about the accusations of alleged attempted Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and Ethnic Cleansing cases. ICC Prosecutor  needs to investigate, start a prosecution and prepare for trial proceedings.

There are more than enough evidences for the indictment of SPDC Generals with Genocide and Crimes against Humanity.

Depayin massacre alone could be enough for preliminary indictment. If combined with the atrocities in the ethnic minority areas and their religious persecutions, our indictments would strongly stand as the castle built on solid rock. SPDC Generals could not have any solid ground of defense and their defense would collapse like a hut built on quick sand.

If Russia and China are still opposing the above proposal, please kindly bring those Criminal SPDC Junta to the International Criminal Court for cold blooded killing of the Japanese photo-video Journalist. We need to remind Russia, China and Singapore that according to the International Laws, local laws and Common Laws, the persons who protect the criminals or cover-up the crime are also guilty of committing an offence. Singapore is rumored to be the safe heaven for the SPDC Generals and families for money laundry and its statement that a Singaporean was injured by the RUBBER BULLET, could also be seen as illegally trying to help cover-up the crimes of using life bullets by SPDC Junta.

 

Footage capturing the last, terrible seconds of Kenji Nagai’s life has been aired on Japanese television – horrifying a nation and realising the truth that the 50-year old photo-journalist was murdered by Burmese troops. A doctor at the Japanese embassy in Burma confirmed a bullet entered Nagai’s body from the lower right side of his chest, pierced his heart and exited from his back. The footage, say Japanese experts, squarely contradicts the official Burmese explanation of Nagai’s death – that he was killed by a “stray bullet”.

After the incriminating video-proof surfaced, now the SPDC is trying to give excuse like a common criminal, they officially change the shooting to an accident. What did SPDC mean? The SPDC soldiers were trigger happy and are ordered to freely shoot
Myanmar citizens but they thought that the Japanese photo-journalist was a local Burmese Chinese? Even if the victim in the shooting video was not a foreigner but local
Myanmar citizen, it is still a crime to kill an unarmed civilian without provocation. SPDC Generals and especially Senior General Than Shwe is responsible to answer and clarify at the ICC. And the arresting of the local journalists, cutting off the phone lines and internet are also clear case of trying to cover-up their crimes. Searching and confiscation of the cameras and hand phones capable of taking pictures is also part of the cover-up scheme. This is the typical scenario of committing the Eighth Stage of Genocide, cover-up and denial.

According to the unconfirmed reports, up to 8,000 people may have been rounded up around Yangon. This could not be independently confirmed but dissident groups have said that up to 6,000 people have been arrested since troops put down the uprising on Sept. 26 and 27 when they opened fire on crowds.

 

The government says 10 people were killed but others say up to 200 people died in the crackdown on demonstrators who were largely led by Buddhist monks. Part of the proof is already in the photographs and videos came out from Burma and splashed in all the media worldwide. The whole SPDC from the Senior General Than Shwe to the soldiers who had done the shootings are all equally guilty of this killing.

 

 

 

Shari Villarosa, US charge d’affaires in the military-ruled country, also said she believed the death toll from last week’s crackdown was much higher than the junta has admitted and that thousands of people may have been jailed. On the streets of Yangon “a semblance of normalcy has returned, but those of us who live here see the mood has changed,” she told AFP by telephone. “There has always been a lot of discontent, but now it’s mixed with anger and fear.”

Bob Davis, the Australian Ambassador to Burma, said that the number of dead was probably “several multiples” more than the ten officially acknowledged by the Burmese authorities.

Although we are sorry for the death Japanese, at least you have the courage. See the Singaporean was hit by the LIFE BULLET. Coward, greedy, Singapore government announced shamelessly that a Singaporean was hit by the RUBBER BULLET.If they are right, accept my apology. But I suspected that SPDC NEVER use Rubber Bullet! Shame on you Singapore Kaisu Government.

The “soldier” who shot Kenji Nagai was curiously wearing the slippers. May be there is some truth in the repeated rumors that SPDC officers trained the convicted criminals to shoot the rifles (or semi-automatic machine guns) and given the stimulants like Amphetamines or Ecstasy pills to commit the atrocities like killing the monks and civilians. There are also repetitive reports that the SPDC soldiers are given the same stimulants like Amphetamines or Ecstasy pills to commit raping of ethnic minorities. I think this is the first time our world had witness a regular government soldier without boots. If that is true, the one who ordered or give the command would be more guilty then the actual perpetrators. This is a very important point to remind our prosecutors at ICC. Japan is demanding Myanmar to punish those who are responsible for shooting dead a Japanese journalist, Kenji Nagai, 50, a video-journalist for Tokyo-based APF News,  in a bloody crackdown on anti-government protests, newspapers said yesterday. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday in New York that his special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, had delivered “the strongest possible message” to Myanmar’s military leaders about their bloody crackdown on democracy activists, but added that he could not call his four-day trip a success. Senior General Than Shwe, is paying scant regard to the calls for restraint delivered by the UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, who flew back to New York to brief the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon.”That is one of the top concerns of the international community,” said Ban, who was to attend a meeting of the 15-member Security Council on Friday to discuss the crackdown in Myanmar.

I strongly believe that there are more than enough evidences for Indictment of SPDC Generals with Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, even if we just compiled the records of the following reputable reports from:

  1. US States Department

  2. Human Rights Watch

  3. Amnesty International

  4. Burma, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2007

  5. Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of States,
    United States of America, 2007

  6. Burma, International Religious Freedom Report 2007

  7. Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at Department of States
    United States of America

  8. Burma, Human Rights overview by Human Rights Watch

  9. Myanmar: by Amnesty International

Security Council’s responsibility to protect

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, “reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. The resolution commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

According to the Swiss professor Julia Fribourg, the term “genocide” includes displacement of national groups from their homelands with an aim of destroying their cultural and habitational grounds.

SPDC have being unwisely, blatantly, widely and continuously using this specific term of GENOCIDE, annihilating, in their signboards and billboards.

The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political parties and SPDC is doing this on NLD and all the opposition parties openly.

Regarding the social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, the SPDC is doing this on Mon, Shans, Chins, Kachin, Karens, Rakhines and almost all the Ethnic Minorities.

Religion. SPDC is committing this on especially on:

  1. Buddhist Monks in the opposition or Monks who refused the SPDC Generals donation were disrobed, jailed and tortured.

  2. Muslims, Burmese Muslims and Rohingyas.

  3. Christians: especially Karens, Chins, all other Christians in Myanmar

And regarding the economic existence of national groups, SPDC is committing this on all the people of Myanmar/Burma.

And SPDC is openly doing all what they could for the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to all the above groups.The scope of Genocide is broadened at the present time, as it included not only physical genocide, but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group.

How cases reach the ICC

There are four methods by which a case may reach the ICC:

  1. A state party refers the case;

  2. A country that has chosen to accept the Court’s jurisdiction refers the case;

  3. The United Nations Security Council refers the case; or

  4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.

The Court to exercise its jurisdiction only under certain limited circumstances, namely:

  1. Where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person’s state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);

  2. Where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or

  3. Where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.

As SPDC is not going to refer its own case or likely to give a voluntary consent, we need the third criteria, to be referred by the UNSC. We just need to push international community to start a trial of these SPDC leaders, cohorts and supporters. Even if we could obtain the International Warrants of Arrest for the SPDC Generals, their mobility would be restricted and they may even scared of venturing into the International Air space on the way to their friendly countries. And it may be a major moral boost for all of us fighting for democracy and may be a very severe blow morally and physically to SPDC Generals and their soothers, ASEAN, Thailand, China, India,
Russia, and North Korea etc.

We are glad to present a very important point of International Law that at the International Court of Justice an optional protocol that allows individuals who have had their rights violated by member states to petition the international Human Rights Committee.The following parties could file their cases:

  1. States

  2. International organizations are usually the only ones with standing to address a violation of international law, some treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  3. But there have an optional protocol that allows individuals who have had their rights violated by member states to petition the international Human Rights Committee.

Therefore, I strongly believe that there are more than enough evidences for the indictment of SPDC Generals with Genocide and Crimes against Humanity.

Depayin massacre alone could be enough for preliminary indictment. If combined with the atrocities in the ethnic minority area and their religious persecutions, our indictments would strongly stand as the castle built on solid rock. SPDC Generals could not have any solid ground of defense and their defense would collapse like a hut built on quick sand.

We just need to push international community to start the lobby for a trial of these SPDC leaders, cohorts and supporters at the ICC. If we could persuade UNSC to refer the SPDC Junta’s attempted Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and Ethnic Cleansing, our case is sure to win. If we could obtain the International Warrants of Arrest for the SPDC Generals, their mobility would be restricted and they may even scared of venturing into the International Air space on the way to their friendly countries.

Now, if the SPDC Junta refuses the demands of UN, US, EU and Burmese opposition, they should be threatened with the ICC. But if they give in and start a reconciliatory process and allow Daw Suu led NLD and opposition, UN, US, EU and all the opposition should guarantee the safety of Myanmar Tatmadaw and SPDC Generals.

Burmese opposition esp. NLD must promise and guarantee the safety of all the SPDC Generals, soldiers, USDA, Swan Arrshin and their families.

  1. U Kyi Maung’s speech of sending Military Generals esp General Khin Nyunt to
    Nuremberg had made the Generals scared to death and refused any negotiation.

  2. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also failed to convinced the Generals. She said that she could forgive and forget but to take action on the perpetrators of atrocities, it is up to the victims and Burmese people. In stead of those words, she should give very strong guarantee by saying that if anyone wants to revenge the Myanmar Tatmadaw Generals and personals, she would personally defend. Even should use the words, over her dead body.

When I mention of the granting carpet amnesty and formation of Interim government together, some of my shortsighted comrades are angry and even accused me as SPDC admirer. They pointed about the sufferings of activists who sacrificed their lives, jailed, tortured, wounded, crippled, lost jobs etc.

I just pointed out to them that if they are powerful enough and could overthrow SPDC by force, go ahead. Now we are powerless, weak and we are not in any position to impose our will on SPDC by force. If we want them to transfer the power peacefully, we must negotiate and guarantee their safety.

And what is the use of hanging or punishing the dethroned dictators if we ignored the sacrificed activist. Just look at the Iraq. We must try to forget the incidence and give up the attempt to punish them even if we could not forgive the perpetrators.

Like the no fault compensation in some insurance schemes, the State of Burma/Myanmar should compensate all the sufferers, with lump some rewards, monthly pensions, giving employment, projects, land, shop-lots, interest free loans etc.

Then only it will be a win-win situation for all of us, including SPDC and Tatmadaw. After all we could not disband the 400,000 strong, Myanmar Tatmadaw. Just look at what happens in
Iraq. Not only the jobless ex-military could give trouble, our country’s security would be compromised. We need them to protect us from foreign aggressors and hard-line separatists to prevent the total disintegration of Burma/Myanmar.

Anyway, we should send a strong message to the SPDC Enough is enough, Let’s see in (ICC) court. 

* I here below add footnotes in the place of comments.

 

 

9 Responses to “Enough is enough, SPDC! Let’s see in (ICC) court”

  1. edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:23 am1Dr San Oo Aung

    The International Criminal Court
    In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague (Netherlands) and the Rome Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Article 7 of the treaty stated about crimes against humanity in detail: _
    Crime against humanity
    For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    1.Murder;
    2.Extermination;
    3.Enslavement;
    4.Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5.Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    6.Torture;
    7.Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    8.Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    9.Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10.The crime of apartheid;
    11.Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
    According to the Commentary on the Rome Statute:
    Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion.
    On the other hand_
    1.an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity
    2.even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or
    3.engages in one such offence against only a few civilians,
    4.provided those offences are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.)
    5.Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test:
    6.one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and
    7.verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or
    8.a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or
    9.sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness.
    Adoption and entry into force of the Rome Statute
    Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome, Italy, in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.
    The proceedings of ICC
    Crime against humanity
    Means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    1.Murder;
    2.Extermination;
    3.Enslavement;
    4.Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5.Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    6.Torture;
    7.Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    8.Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    9.Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10.The crime of apartheid;
    11.Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
    According to the Commentary on the Rome Statute:
    Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion.
    On the other hand_
    1.an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity
    2.even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or
    3.engages in one such offence against only a few civilians,
    4.provided those offences are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.)
    5.Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test:
    a.one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and
    b.verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or
    c.a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or
    d.sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness.
    Reporters Without Borders and the Burma Media Association call for the immediate release of Burmese journalists, who are apparently being held incommunicado by the security forces. Their arrests bring the number of journalists detained in Burma to 10. At least a thousand people have been arrested since demonstrations began a month ago.

  2. edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:25 am2Dr San Oo Aung

    Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
    Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the Court jurisdiction over four crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the
    1.crime of genocide,
    2.crimes against humanity and
    3.the war crimes. The statute defines each of these crimes.
    4.(I decided to leave the forth without mentioning as its definination was not agreed yet.)
    Cases before the Court
    As of November 2006, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-
    Ocampo, had received 1,700 communications about alleged crimes in 139 countries. However, 80% of these communications have been found outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
    The Prosecutor has so far opened investigations into just three situations only:
    1.Uganda,
    2.Democratic Republic of Congo, and
    3.Darfur.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:26 am3Dr San Oo Aung

    Crime against humanity
    In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague (Netherlands), following the principle of universal jurisdiction. The “Rome Statute” provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The treaty stated that:
    “Crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.
    1.Murder;
    2.Extermination;
    3.Enslavement;
    4.Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5.Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    6.Torture;
    7.Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    8.Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    9.Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10.The crime of apartheid;
    11.Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:27 am4Dr San Oo Aung

    Ethnic cleansing
    Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory. The term entered English and international usage in the early 1990s to describe certain events in the former Yugoslavia, with the induced cleansing of Bosniaks (”Bosnian Muslims”). Narrower definitions equate ethnic cleansing with forcible population transfer accompanied by gross human-rights violations and other factors. In broader definitions it is effectively a synonym of population transfer.
    Definitions
    The term ethnic cleansing has been variously defined. In the words of Andrew Bell-Fialkoff:
    Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an “undesirable” population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.
    Drazen Petrovic has distinguished between broad and narrow definitions. Broader definitions focus on the fact of expulsion based on ethnic criteria, while narrower definitions include additional criteria: for example, that expulsions are systematic, illegal, involve gross human-rights abuses, or are connected with an ongoing internal or international war. According to Petrovic:
    Ethnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of
    1.religious,
    2.ethnic or
    3.national origin.
    Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means – – –
    1.from discrimination to
    2.extermination, and
    3.entails violations of human rights and
    4.international humanitarian law.”
    SPDC is known for- – –
    1.killings members of the group, (extrajudicial and in the jails)
    2.physical destructions, (of houses, religious places, villages etc)
    3.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    4.rape
    5.tortures
    6.jailings
    7.imposing restricted movements
    8.preventing or disturbing their daily struggle for a livelyhood
    9.daily alteration of orders or laws to restrict or disturb the daily activities etc
    10.Denying of all the Basic Human Rights to all its citizens.
    11.of all the groups in opposition,
    12.NLD,
    13.Ethnic Minorities and
    14.Minority Religious groups.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:29 am5Dr San Oo Aung

    Definition of Genocide
    Any of the following acts committed with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part on:
    1.a national
    2.ethnic group
    3.race
    4.religious group
    SPDC is doing this on all the above groups or categories eg:
    1.all the people of Myanmar/Burma.
    2.all the Ethnic Minorities eg Mon, Shans, Chins, Kachin, Karens, Rakhines etc
    3.NLD and all the opposition parties open
    4.Muslims, Burmese Muslims, Christians and even Buddhists
    Defined by Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG)
    Any of the following acts committed:
    1.Killing members of the group or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    2.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    3.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    SPDC is known for:
    1.killings members of the group, extrajudicial and in the jails.
    2.physical destructions, of houses, religious places, villages etc
    3.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    4.rape
    5.tortures
    6.jailings
    7.imposing restricted movements
    8.preventing or disturbing their daily struggle for a livelyhood
    9.daily alteration of orders or laws to restrict or disturb the daily activities etc
    10.Denying of all the Basic Human Rights to all its citizens.
    11.of all the groups in opposition, NLD, Ethnic Minorities, Minority Religious groups.)
    Genocide.
    It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions
    1.aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of human groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. (SPDC have being continuously using this term, annihilating, in their signboards and billboards)
    2.The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and (SPDC is doing this on NLD and all the opposition parties openly)
    3.social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, (SPDC is doing this on Mon, Shans, Chins, Kachin, Karens, Rakhines and almost all the Ethnic Minorities)
    4.religion. SPDC is committing this on especially on:
    5.Muslims, Burmese Muslims and Rohingya Muslims and
    6.Christians: especially Karens, Chins and all other Christians in Myanmar
    7.Buddhist Monks in the opposition or Monks refused the SPDC Generals donation were derobed, jailed and tortured.
    8.and the economic existence of national groups (SPDC is committing this on all the people of Myanmar/Burma.)
    9.And SPDC is openly doing all what they could for the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to all the above groups.
    10.it was broad at the same time as it included not only physical genocide, but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group.
    The ordinary meaning of genocide is murder by government (eg SPDC of Myanmar) of its own.
    The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group.
    A generalized meaning of genocide also includes government (SPDC Generals) killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder
    Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute genocide,
    ICC is a “court of last resort,” leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to individual states.
    Genocide appears to be a regular and widespread event in the history of civilization. The phrase “never again” often used in relation to genocide has been contradicted up to the present day.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:32 am6Dr San Oo Aung

    GENOCIDE IS A CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW regardless of
    1.”Whether committed in time of peace or in time of war”
    2.Irrespective of the context in which it occurs for example:
    3.peace time,
    4.internal strife,
    5.international armed conflict or
    6.whatever the general overall situation
    Genocide is a punishable international crime.
    The acts specified in the Convention must be:
    “Committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
    The extent of destruction of a group
    Destruction of a group in whole or in part does not mean that the group in its entirety must be exterminated.
    The words “in whole or in part” were inserted in the text to make it clear that it is not necessary to aim at killing all the members of the group. (So SPDC could be charged accordingly.)
    If essentially the total leadership of a group is targeted, it could also amount to genocide. Such leadership includes political and administrative leaders, religious leaders, academics and intellectuals, business leaders and others –
    (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD leaders’ arrest, U Khun Htun Oo and Shan leaders arrested are included in the definition of Genocide.)
    The totality per se may be a strong indication of genocide regardless of the actual numbers killed. A corroborating argument will be the fate of the rest of the group. The character of the attack on the leadership must be viewed in the context of the fate or what happened to the rest of the group.
    If a group has its leadership exterminated, and at the same time or in the wake of that, has a relatively large number of the members of the group killed or subjected to other heinous acts, for example deported on a large scale or forced to flee, the cluster of violations ought to be considered in its entirety in order to interpret the provisions of the
    Thus, the intent to destroy the fabric of a society through the extermination of its leadership, when accompanied by other acts of elimination of a segment of society, can also be deemed genocide.
    The groups protected
    1.National, ethnical, racial or religious groups are all protected.
    2.It is not a condition that the victim group be a minority, it might as well be a numerical majority.
    3.If there are several or more than one victim groups, and each group as such is protected, it may be within the spirit and purpose of the Convention to consider all the victim groups as a larger entity. The case being, for example, that there is evidence that group A ( Here Myanmar SPDC ) wants to destroy in whole or in part groups B, C and D, or rather everyone who does not belong to the national, ethnic, racial or religious group A. In a sense, group A has defined a pluralistic non-A group (=Non Myanmar Military) using national, ethnic, racial and religious criteria for the definition. It seems relevant to analyze the fate of the non-A group along similar lines as if the non-A group had been homogenous.
    .
    To be genocide within the meaning of the Convention, the crimes against a number of individuals must be directed at their collectivity or at them in their collective character or capacity. (SPDC and Kyant Phut’s attack on Daw Suu, NLD, U Khun Tun Oo and Shan leaders may qualify for this.
    This enumeration indicates how far the crime needs to have advanced before it becomes punishable. For example,
    1.an attempt will suffice.
    2.Secondly, it describes what kind of involvement in actual genocide may result in penal responsibility under the Convention.
    3.Thus, criminal responsibility extends to those involved in incitement, conspiracy and attempt,
    4.as well as individuals actually executing the specific acts prohibited by the Convention.
    5.Political masterminds or propaganda people are no less responsible than the individuals who perform the actual carnage.
    6.There are, therefore, several legal bases for criminal responsibility of individuals who engage in or are part of the various aspects of genocide.
    Culpability
    It is explicitly stated in the Convention that people who have committed genocide shall be punished
    1.whether they are
    2.”constitutionally responsible rulers,
    3.public officials or private individuals” (art. IV).
    4.Public officials include both civilian and military personnel and everyone who holds (or held) a public office – be it legislative, administrative or judicial.
    To meet the aims of the Convention, people in the said categories must be treated equally irrespective of their de jure or
    1.de facto positions as decision-makers.
    2.As individuals, they are subject to prosecution like any other individual violator.
    3.They cannot hide behind any shield of immunity.
    4.The legal and moral responsibilities are the same and the need to prevent genocide no less clear because of the position of the violator.
    Genocide
    Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as _
    1.”any of the following acts committed – – –
    2.with intent to destroy ( in whole or in part),
    3.a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
    4.killing members of the group;
    5.causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    6.deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life,
    7.calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    8.imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    9.and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
    Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
    It is intended to signify _
    1.a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups,
    2.with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
    The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions :
    1.of culture,
    2.language,
    3.national feelings,
    4.religion, and
    5.the economic existence of national groups, and
    6.the destruction of the personal security,
    7.liberty,
    8.health,
    9.dignity, and
    10.even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
    Genocide as a crime under international law
    Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide. This was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
    CPPCG coming into force
    The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951.
    It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:”
    1.Killing members of the group;
    2.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    3.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    4.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    5.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    6.SPDC is doing all these on all the above groups or categories eg:
    7.all the people of Myanmar/Burma.
    8.all the Ethnic Minorities eg Mon, Shans, Chins, Kachin, Karens, Rakhines etc
    9.NLD and all the opposition parties open
    10.Muslims, Burmese Muslims, Christians and even Buddhists .
    11.The words “in whole or in part” were inserted in the text to make it clear that it is not necessary to aim at killing all the members of the group. So SPDC junta can be charged with attempted genocide accordingly.
    12.If essentially the total leadership of a group is targeted, it could also amount to genocide. Such leadership includes political and administrative leaders, religious leaders, academics and intellectuals, business leaders and others –
    13.Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD leaders’ arrest,
    14.U Khun Htun Oo and Shan leaders arrested are included in the definition of Genocide.
    Thus, the intent to destroy the fabric of a society through the extermination of its leadership, when accompanied by other acts of elimination of a segment of society, can also be deemed genocide.
    Intent
    It is the element of intent to destroy a designated group in whole or in part, which makes crimes of mass murder and crimes against humanity qualify as genocide.
    To be accepted as a genocide within the meaning of the Convention_
    1.the crimes against a number of individuals must be directed at their collectivity or
    2.at them in their collective character or capacity. SPDC and Kyant Phut’s attack on Daw Suu, NLD, U Khun Tun Oo and Shan leaders may qualify for this.
    3.Motive and intent may be closely linked, but motive is not mentioned in the Convention. The necessary element of intent may be inferred from sufficient facts.
    In certain cases, there will be evidence of actions or omissions of such a degree that the defendant may reasonably be assumed to have been aware of the consequences of his or her conduct, which goes to the establishment of intent, but not necessarily motive.
    .

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:33 am7Dr San Oo Aung

    Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it

    According to President of Genocide Watch, Gregory Stanton, genocide develops in eight stages.

    1. Classification People are divided into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality:
    Myanmar Military divided all the people of Myanmar as Military/ex-Military/Family and relatives of Military. Vs Non Military ordinary people.
    Myanmar Military labeled: Muslims as Kala/Kala Dain, Mi Masit Pha Masit (Bustards).
    Myanmar Chinese and Myanmar Muslim as Mixed blooded/guest citizens/not loyal to the country/ illegal immigrants etc.
    Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bengladesh.
    NLD and all the opposition members as traitors, servants of Western colonists.
    Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as untrustworthy Myanmar Military labeled Muslims as , foreigner’s wife, agent of colonists etc
    Chin, Karen, Mon, Shan, Kachin and almost all other Ethnic Minorities as rebels, separatists, those who want to divide the country etc The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend… divisions, and that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions.
    2. Symbolization “When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups…”
    NLD, Opposition, Rebels, Ethnic Minorities as Non Bama, Muslims, Christians, Chinese, even Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Kha Maut is symbolized for hatred and annihilation. “To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden… as can hate speech”.
    3.Dehumanization “Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.”
    Rape, torture, porter, forced labour, imprisonment on trumpeted charges, forced recruitment of child soldiers etc by SPDC
    One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.
    At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished. “Hate propaganda should be banned, hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.”
    4. Organization “Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed…” or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings.
    Myanmar Military, MI, BSI, Kyant Phut, Swan Arrshin etc.
    “To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed.” Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and relatives of Myanmar Military, MI, BSI, Kyant Phut , Swan Arrshin etc
    5. Polarization “Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda…” Bill boards around the country, Government various media, pamphlets speeches of SPDC
    Extremists drive the groups apart. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center “Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups…”
    Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups de’tat by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.
    6. Identification “Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity…” This is very obvious with the SPDC.
    Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are often segregated into ghettoes, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved.
    “At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called…” If the political will of the U.S., NATO, and the U.N. Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared or heavy assistance to the victim group in preparing for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees.
    7. Extermination “It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.” Extermination begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.”
    When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing.
    The whole Myanmar/Burma is used as killing field. Even on the streets in the daylight they had shoot to kill the thousand of demonstrators including students. This was after the open threat or warning by their Supreme leader General Ne Win in his farewell speech. “At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection.”
    The U.N. needs a Standing High Readiness Brigade or a permanent rapid reaction force, to intervene quickly when the U.N. Security Council calls it. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N., led by NATO or a regional military power, should intervene. If the U.N. will not intervene directly, militarily powerful nations should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene with U.N. authorization. It is time to recognize that the law of humanitarian intervention transcends the interests of nation-states.
    8. Denial “The perpetrators… deny that they committed any crimes…”
    Asked any SPDC Generals, Myanmar Military they are willing to confirm and prove this fact of truth! Denial is the eighth stage that always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. “The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts.”
    Denial is the eighth stage that always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. “The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts.”
    There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone Tribunals, an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and ultimately the International Criminal Court must be created. They may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some mass murderers may be brought to justice.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:35 am8Dr San Oo Aung

    Under all four Conventions on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it prohibits;

    1.wilful killing,
    2.torture,
    3.rape or
    4.inhuman treatment of protected persons, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
    5.and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

    Under article 85, paragraph 3, of Additional Protocol I, the following acts constitute grave breaches if committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
    “(a) Making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
    “(b) Launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects …;
    Additional Protocol I also provides, in article 85, paragraph 4 that certain acts are grave breaches when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or Protocol, namely:
    “(c) Practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;
    “(d) Making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, … the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of (prior use of such objects in support of the adverse party’s military effort), and when such (places) are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives;
    “(e) Depriving any person protected by the Conventions (or the Protocol) of fair and regular trial.”
    It must be noted that the statute of the International Tribunal refers to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in article 2 and to violations of the laws or customs of war in article 3. It does not refer explicitly to grave breaches of Additional Protocol I. Many of the grave breaches of Additional Protocol I also constitute violations of the laws and customs of war.

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
    The above was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime.
    Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of alleged genocides should be understood in this context and not regarded as the final word on these subjects.

    The scope of international law

    International law establishes the framework and the criteria for identifying states as the principal actors in the international legal system.

    As the existence of a state presupposes control and jurisdiction over territory, international law deals with the acquisition of territory, state immunity and the legal responsibility of states in their conduct with each other. The law is similarly concerned with the treatment of individuals within state boundaries. There is thus a comprehensive regime dealing with group rightsthe treatment of aliens, the rights of refugees, international crimes, nationality problems and human rights generally.

    It further includes the important functions of the maintenance of international peace and security,
    arms control, the specific settlement of disputes and the regulation of the use of force in international relations. Even when the law is not able to stop the outbreak of war, it has developed principles to govern the conduct of hostilities and the treatment of prisoners.
    Whilst municipal law is hierarchical or vertical, with the legislature enacting binding legislation, international law is horizontal, with all states being sovereign and theoretically equal.

    Because of this, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, “international law cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of international relations”.

    Where there are breaches of the law international law has no established compulsory judicial system for the settlement of disputes or coercive penal system. That is not to say that there are no judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals in international law. The formation of the United Nations, for example, created a means for the world community to enforce international law upon members that violate its charter.
    Traditionally, states were the sole subjects of international law. With the proliferation of international organizations over the last century, they have in some cases been recognized as relevant parties as well. Recent interpretations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international trade law (e.g. NAFTA Chapter 11
    Enforcement by international bodies.

    Violations of the UN Charter by members of the United Nations may be raised by the aggrieved state in the General Assembly for debate. The General Assembly cannot make binding resolutions, but under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution (GA/RES/0377) it declared it could authorize the use of force if there had been Breaches of the Peace or Acts of Aggression, provided that the Security Council due to a negative vote of a permanent member failed to act. (This clause may be useful for us as China and Russa would definetly try to block the Security Council.)

    It could call for other collective measures (such as economic sanctions) given a situation constituted the milder “threat to the Peace”.
    The legal significance of such a resolution is unclear, as the General Assembly cannot issue binding resolutions.

    They can also be raised in the Security Council. The Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend “Pacific Resolution of Disputes.” Such resolutions are not binding under international law, though they usually are expressive of the council’s convictions.

    In rare cases, the Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter related to “threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression,” and these are legally binding under international law, and can be followed up with economic sanctions, military action, and similar uses of force through the auspices of the United Nations.

    It has been argued that resolutions passed outside of Chapter VII can also be binding; the legal basis for that is the Council’s broad powers under Article 24(2), which states that “in discharging these duties (exercise of primary responsibility in international peace and security), it shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”.

    The mandatory nature of such resolutions was upheld by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Namibia. The binding nature of such resolutions can be deduced from an interpretation of their language and intent.

  • edit this on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:37 am9Dr San Oo Aung

    Legal aspects of rape and other sexual assaults

    Rape constitutes a crime under international humanitarian law as well as under the criminal laws of the various republics.It is also part of the substantive applicable law of the statute of the International Tribunal where it is referred to in several articles.

    Unlike most codified penal laws in the world, in international humanitarian law rape is not precisely defined. But on the basis of the contemporary criminal laws of the world’s major criminal justice systems, the Commission considers rape to be a crime of violence of a sexual nature against the person.

    This characteristic of violence of a sexual nature also applies to other forms of sexual assault against women, men *18 and children, *19 when these activities are performed under coercion or threat of force and include sexual mutilation. *20

    It should be noted that irrespective of their definition, acts of sexual assault against women, men and children are prohibited by international humanitarian law through normative provisions prohibiting violence against the physical integrity and dignity of the person. Therefore, rape and other sexual assaults are covered in pari materia.

    Even though sexual assaults imply the commission of the crime by a given perpetrator, persons who do not perform the act but are indirectly involved in the commission of this crime, like decision-makers and superiors, are also responsible under the Genocide Convention (art. III) and general norms of command responsibility (see paras. 55 – 60). So SPDC Generals are responsible for the rapes committed by their soldiers.

    Violations of the laws and customs of war applicable to conflicts of an international character are contained in a number of international instruments. The Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land deals with the question of sexual assaults in article 46: “Family honour and rights, the lives of persons and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.”

    The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits rape in article 27. The Commission deems that article 147 of the same Convention on “grave breaches” includes rape and other sexual assaults as constituting “torture or inhumane treatment” and that they are also prohibited because they are among those acts “willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health”.

    Furthermore, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions contains in article 76 an express prohibition of rape and other sexual assaults. In addition, such practices which are based on racial discrimination also constitute “grave breaches” under article 85, paragraph 4 of Protocol I, which holds that “inhuman and degrading practices involving outrage upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination” are prohibited.

    It is also considered that article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitutes part of customary international law, thus also establishing a basis for universal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it should be noted with respect to Protocol I, that the provisions of article 85, when violated on the basis of racial discrimination, also constitute a violation of customary international law.

    Under all of these provisions, a single act of rape or sexual assault constitutes a war crime. As a “grave breach”, this type of violation falls under universal jurisdiction.

    The perpetrator, however, must be a person who is linked to one of the parties to the conflict and the victim must be linked to another party to the conflict or be a citizen of a neutral State. It is also held that article 76 of Protocol I is applicable to victims who are not protected by other provisions of the four Geneva Conventions.
    With respect to provisions applicable to conflicts of a non-international character, common article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions applies, as does article 4, paragraph 2 of Protocol II.

    Both of these provisions include a prohibition against rape and other sexual assaults in so far as they constitute wilful injury to the person. A single act is enough to constitute such a violation when the perpetrator is linked to one of the parties to the conflict and the victim is linked to another party to the conflict or is a citizen of a neutral State. (Good enough to prosecute SPDC Generals.)

    Under Protocol II, such prohibited acts constitute a violation when the conflict takes place “in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident forces or other organized groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol” (art. 1, para. 1).

    Under the Genocide Convention, sexual assault and rape are included within the meaning of article II of the Convention, provided that the prohibited conduct is committed as part of an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

  • Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: