Genocide and crimes against humanity

This is an excerpt from a report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Web links to this page are welcome, but formal citations should be to the official report, E/CN.4/2005/7.

36. The way in which individual States and the international community as a whole deal with the most serious human rights violations of all - those involving genocide or crimes against humanity - tells us a lot about the priorities involved and about the current state of human rights protection. The overall picture is too often characterized by outright denial, refusal to address the issue, or positive undermining of initiatives designed to respond in some way to these most serious of all allegations. One continuing trend over the past year has been an excessive legalism which manifests itself in definitional arguments over whether a chronic and desperate situation has risen to the level of genocide or not. In the meantime, while some insist that the term is clearly applicable and others vigorously deny that characterization, all too little is done to put an end to the ongoing violations.6 At the end of the day the international community must be judged on the basis of its action, not on its choice of terminology.

37. At the same time opposition has escalated in some quarters to the International Criminal Court, despite the fact that it is the only mechanism that has ever been established in order to determine systematically and objectively when the crime of genocide has been committed, and thus to lay down guidelines which will reduce the likelihood of legalistic arguments masking inaction in the future.

38. Nevertheless, there have been several encouraging developments in the past year. One of those was the appointment by the Secretary-General of Juan Méndez as his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Another was the appointment of an independent International Commission of Inquiry “in order immediately to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable” (Security Council resolution 1564 (2004), para. 12). This step followed the report of a country visit undertaken by the then Special Rapporteur, whose report is currently before the Commission. One of the conclusions of her report was that there are “strong indications that the scale of violations of the right to life in Darfur could constitute crimes against humanity for which the Government of the Sudan must bear responsibility” (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2, para. 57). In terms of action as opposed to inquiries, however, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change commented in December 2004 on “the glacial speed at which our institutions have responded to massive human rights violations in Darfur”.7

39. A third positive development in 2004 was the High-level Panel’s emphasis on more concerted action against genocide, which included calling upon the Security Council to authorize “military intervention as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign Governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent”.8 The Panel also asked “the permanent members [of the Security Council], in their individual capacities, to pledge themselves to refrain from the use of the veto in cases of genocide and large-scale human rights abuses”.9 If the latter proposal were to have a serious prospect of being adopted, there would be a role for the Commission on Human Rights in suggesting when such situations exist.

40. The Special Rapporteur has already met with the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the two experts have agreed that they will work closely together whenever the desired outcome would be facilitated thereby.

Recommendations

82. The International Criminal Court represents an essential element in the struggle to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. In order to promote those objectives all States should ratify its Statute.

83. The permanent members of the Security Council should pledge themselves not to use the veto in cases involving genocide and large-scale human rights abuses. The Commission should consider how it can facilitate progress towards this goal.

6 In this respect it is relevant to recall the situation of Rwanda in 1994 when United Nations officials did not use the term until one month after massive killings had begun and some Security Council members continued to resist use of the term for a considerable time thereafter.

7 A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (United Nations, 2004), para. 42.