Holding Perpetrators Accountable: The Ongoing Fight to Prosecute Genocide

Introduction

Genocide is one of the darkest realities ever; this is a way of trying to eradicate an entire population because of who they are. The word itself was born out of unspeakable tragedy. When millions of Jewish people were systematically killed during World War II, after the holocaust, the world knew it needed a word to capture such unimaginable crimes. The word “genocide” was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who, having seen his family perish, worked incessantly to push the world to commit itself; no one should ever have to go through such horrors again. In 1948, that effort culminated in the United Nations Genocide Convention, where countries pledged to prevent and punish genocide.

Yet even with these international promises, the perpetrators of genocides are far from bringing them in front of justice. During the years, the special courts have been set up to send the perpetrators to the dock, starting from the tribunals over the Rwandan Genocide and over the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and last but not least with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Still, prosecution of genocide is challenging for several reasons. Not only is it difficult to prove that leaders had intent to destroy a group, but it also involves facing the political realities involved in trying powerful figures. Then, there’s the challenge of obtaining evidence from dangerous places and protecting witnesses who risk life to speak out.

Today, these challenges play out in cases such as that of the Rohingyas against the state of Myanmar, the Yazidis at the receiving end of ISIS, and the Uighurs suffering under China. These cases involve hard-hitting complexities that continue to take place; here the force of justice is severely opposed. For all that, there are grounds to cling to hope. Advances in technology, better international cooperation, and innovative approaches in the judicial system show that we have not yet lost the commitment to seeking justice, no matter how long or arduous the road has been.

This article analyses human and legal aspects and several recent cases, showing courage and resilience in seeking justice for those who have lost everything.

1. Central Challenges in Prosecution of Genocide

• Legal and Definition Obstacles

One of the serious legal burdens of prosecuting genocide is the need to prove “specific intent” — that is, that the perpetrator intended to destroy a given group.

This aspect of intent makes genocide distinct from other crimes against humanity, which is often evidenced by much proof, pretty hard to come by in war-torn areas. The Genocide Convention details several genocidal acts, which include killing and causing bodily or mental harm; however, it is sometimes difficult to determine that such actions were part of a more organized plan to annihilate an entire group.

Yet, every forum has its limitations. For instance, ICC jurisdiction is not available in a case unless the country of the suspect is a signatory to the Rome Statute or unless it gets permission from the UN Security Council. Non-membership of countries like the United States and China makes it difficult for the ICC to try the accused persons. The ICJ can pronounce on the responsibility of states for genocide, but there cannot be a trial for individuals. Ad hoc tribunals are effective, but require massive international backing to be established, and national courts exercising universal jurisdiction have their own political and legal challenges to face.

• Political and Diplomatic Pressures

Genocide cases always feature well-known perpetrators and may draw diplomatic rivalry, as tensions in the diplomatic relation set in when the accused coincides with a significant country. Political pressures are sometimes regarded as one-sided tools of foreign interference on courts, leading to states’ non-cooperation. Political opposition may occasionally block probes and prosecution, more so if big powers or influential allies are implicated.

• Evidence and Witness Protection Challenged

Cases of genocide highly rely on gathering proof where the zones are still unstable or post-conflict areas. Due to the destruction of visible evidences, it might be hard to get accurate testimonies from frightened or intimidated witnesses. Furthermore, even if witnesses do come forward, guarding them is another challenge altogether. The degradation of evidence, time factor, and political change after many years also weaken the case where the trials may take a long time before their progression.

• Prolonged and Expensive Trials

Legal elaborateness of genocide cases ensures that most of the trials take years and in some cases, decades to conclude. Such a prolongation of judicial procedures can cause great strain on the survivors, delay justice being delivered to the affected, and further exhaust court and legal systems’ resources. Very long pre-trial detentions of suspects also pose an ethical question as far as their human rights are concerned. International genocide cases involving the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides are good examples of protracted such trials.

2. The Most Important Genocide Prosecutions Cases in Recent History

• Myanmar and the Rohingya Genocide

In 2017, Myanmar’s military launched mass violence against the Rohingya, killing thousands of the Muslim minority and expelling more than 700,000 into mass migration to Bangladesh.

Many accounts were documented of the mass killings and village razing that characterised the atrocities. The international community held the country guilty of genocide and brought the case before the ICJ in 2019 when The Gambia charged the country with violating the Genocide Convention for its alleged actions against the Rohingya. This is for the first time a state will sue another for genocide rather than prosecuting individuals. Also, the ICC is pursuing the case since it has its jurisdiction in Bangladesh as a member of the International Criminal Court where many Rohingyas fled.

In 1995, Bosnian Serb forces massacred more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, a crime which was later labeled as genocide by the ICTY. The conviction of high military and political leaders, like Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, serves as an example of individual efforts toward holding leaders accountable, though this case is still controversial, and some Serbian leaders and groups reject it as genocide, which reflects problematic issues surrounding reconciliation and genocide denial in the region.

• The Yazidi Genocide by ISIS

ISIS made the Yazidi minority in Iraq a target of slaughter, enslavement, and forced conversions. The genocide against the Yazidi has resulted in massive national and international legal responses. One of the significant national responses was Germany’s conviction of an ISIS member in 2021 under charges of genocide; he became the first defendant ever convicted by a national court for the atrocity of a Yazidi. The case that Germany presented demonstrates how national courts can exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, even when they took place elsewhere.

• China and Genocide Cases against Uighurs

There are accusations of genocide by China against the Uighurs, the Muslim minority in Xinjiang through forced sterilization, internment, and suppression of religious life. With China’s political and economic might, it is one of the hardest cases to prosecute China for genocide. The sensitivities around China’s international influence have largely impeded litigation efforts up to now, though human rights advocacy groups and some states continue fighting for accountability.

3. Advancements and Innovation in Prosecution of Genocide

• Enhanced Application of Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction gives national courts the authority to prosecute genocides committed in a particular territory based on international customary law and treaty provisions due to where such crimes have been committed irrespective of their locale. One perfect example is the conviction of Germany in the case of Yazidi; they show that national prosecutions can complement international justice, especially when international bodies are limited in their jurisdictions or bounded by political constraints.

• International Cooperation Enhanced

The apprehension and extradition efforts of genocide suspects are being intensified by global organizations, such as Interpol, providing these networks with evidence-sharing and international coordination opportunities that are needed in trans-border crimes.For instance, when the suspect had run to another country, such cooperation becomes very instrumental and adds a dimension to these prosecutions.

4. Technological Advancement in Evidence Collection

Evidence collection in genocide cases has improved in satellite imaging, digital forensic, and secure online testimonies from remote locations.. For example, although documenting sites, locating witnesses, and acquiring any credible information may be extremely difficult, even after the commission of atrocities, these tools give investigators better tools to accomplish such tasks.

For example, through satellite imagery, evidence on the destruction of Rohingya villages in Myanmar was recorded, hence forming very important evidence in this.

Conclusion

The reasons why such crimes are unpunished are indeed numerous, spanning from legal definitions and requirements of proof to political resistance as well as logistical impediments in collecting evidence.

In recent times, it is the Rohingya, the Yazidis, and the Uighurs who have been victims of genocide. Recent decades have shown that international justice has had a very complex and challenging path. With new universal jurisdiction, international cooperation, and technological innovation, trends show that the path to prosecute genocide is transforming. Further investment in this work is necessary to finally eradicate impunity and promote accountability for the gravest crimes committed.

Reference(s):

1. United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. “The Genocide Convention.” United Nations. Accessed [date]. [https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention).
2. Lemkin, Raphael. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944.
3. International Criminal Court. “Understanding the International Criminal Court.” International Criminal Court. Accessed [date].https://www.icc-cpi.int](https://www.icc-cpi.int)
4. Power, Samantha. A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.New York: Basic Books, 2002.
5. Human Rights Watch. “Myanmar: Crimes Against Humanity Terrorize and Drive rohingya Out.” Human Rights Watch, October 4, 2017. [https://www.hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org).