International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the context of "Crimes against humanity"

Genocidal intent is the specific mental element, or mens rea, required to classify an act as genocide under international law, particularly the 1948 Genocide Convention. To establish genocide, perpetrators must be shown to have had the dolus specialis, or specific intent, to destroy a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Unlike broader war crimes or crimes against humanity, genocidal intent necessitates a deliberate aim to eliminate the targeted group rather than merely displace or harm its members.

The concept of genocidal intent is complex and has spurred significant legal debate, primarily due to the challenge of proving an individual’s intent to destroy a group without direct evidence. International criminal tribunals, such as those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, have relied on circumstantial evidence to infer intent, considering the scale, systematic nature, and targeting patterns of atrocities. Legal standards for genocidal intent have varied, with some rulings demanding dolus directus (direct intent to cause harm) and others allowing for dolus indirectus (foreseeable consequences accepted by the perpetrator). This discrepancy has influenced judicial outcomes, as seen in the acquittal of certain defendants under stringent intent requirements, leading some scholars to advocate for a knowledge-based standard to better facilitate genocide convictions.

A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as "their tribunal". Many governmental bodies are titled "tribunals" to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes.

In many but not all cases, tribunal implies a judicial or quasi-judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, in which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often-styled tribunals. Tribunal is not conclusive of a body's function; in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.

United Nations Security Council resolution 955, adopted on 8 November 1994, after recalling all resolutions on Rwanda, the Council noted that serious violations of international humanitarian law had taken place in the country and, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

The Security Council appreciated the work of the Commission of Experts established in Resolution 935 (1994), and expressed its concern at reports of genocide and other widespread violations of international humanitarian law had taken place in Rwanda. It stated that the situation constituted a threat to international peace and security and was determined to put an end to such crimes and bring those responsible to justice in order to restore peace. The Council believed that the establishment of an international tribunal would ensure that such violations are halted and addressed. In this regard, the need for international co-operation to strengthen the judicial system in Rwanda was stressed.

United Nations Security Council resolution 977, adopted unanimously on 22 February 1995, after recalling Resolution 955 (1994) in which the council was to determine the seat of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and noting a report by the Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the council decided that its seat would be in Arusha, Tanzania.

According to the Secretary-General's report, the decision signalled the second phase of the process in establishing the ICTR, which would now allow the process of selecting the six trial judges to begin. Rwanda's representative to the council Manzi Bakuramutsa said that, while his government did not support the decision to allocate the seat outside Rwanda, it would still co-operate with the security council.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1165, adopted unanimously on 30 April 1998, after recalling Resolution 955 (1994), the council established a third trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

The security council recalled that Resolution 955 allowed for increasing the number of trial chambers and judges at the ICTR. It reaffirmed that the prosecution of those responsible for the violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda would help contribute towards peace and reconciliation. There was also a need to strengthen the Rwandan judicial system as there were many people awaiting trial.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1503, adopted unanimously on 28 August 2003, after recalling resolutions 827 (1993), 955 (1994), 978 (1995), 1165 (1998), 1166 (1998), 1329 (2000), 1411 (2002), 1431 (2002) and 1481 (2003), the Council decided to split the prosecutorial duties of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which had previously been under the responsibility of one official, Carla Del Ponte, since 1999.