Are we waiting for another Rwanda Genocide to occur in Cameroon before we fulfil our responsibility to protect? CHRDA asked a pertinent question in Commemoration of Genocide Awareness Month,
15 min read
The Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa on the occasion of the commemoration of genocide awareness Month has written an article, examining what genocide is and acts which can be considered as acts of genocide given the number of ongoing armed conflicts in the globe and Cameroon’s Anglophone armed conflict. Read the article below as published on their official website www.chrda.org
Today 7th of April 2021, CHRDA is joining the international community to commemorate Genocide awareness month. The world started experiencing acts qualifying to genocide as far back as the 1930s. This was due to the rise of Hitler to power in Germany in 1933 and the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. When WWII broke out in 1939, Hitler and the NAZI regime targeted the Jews and over 6 million Jews were executed. Given that Hitler’s intention was to extinguish the Jews from the face of the earth and based on the definition of genocide, the atrocities he committed amounted to genocide.
In like manner, between April and July 1994, Rwanda experienced an era of mass atrocity crimes in modern-day history. Within a period of approximately 100 days, 800 000 Rwandese were murdered. The 100 days saw at least 6 persons killed every minute. The violence leftover 500,000 children as orphans and widowed over 400,000 women. In the aftermath, an estimated 1.6 million people were displaced from their homes. The origins of this genocide were as a result of the social differences and historical conflicts between the two major ethnic groups, the Hutu and Tutsi. The division and the behaviour of the Tutsi who dominated power could no longer be tolerated by the Hutu who were seen as second class citizens and even excluded from government positions. In a bid to protect their interest, it resulted to what became known today as the Rwanda Genocide.
WHAT IS GENOCIDE?
The term ‘genocide’ was first used by Raphael Lemkin by combining the Greek word ‘genos’ (race or tribe) and the Latin word ‘cide’ (killing) in his book on the crimes committed by the Nazis in Europe.(Lemkin 1994).
The crimes prosecuted at the Nuremberg Tribunal, such as the Jewish Holocaust or the ‘Final Solution’ constituted genocide but were prosecuted as crimes against humanity because the crime of genocide was only defined later (Lipmann 1998).
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 (Genocide Convention) defines genocide in article 2 as any of five specific acts committed with the intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national, or religious group in whole or in part. These acts are: killing members of the group, causing mental and bodily harm to members of the group, imposing conditions calculated to destroy the group in whole or in part, preventing birth within the group and forcibly transferring children from the group to another group. This definition is replicated in Article 6 of the Rome Statute 1998 which deals with the crime of genocide.
Genocide has been labelled the ‘crime of crimes’ by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and thus forms part of customary international law and a norm of jus cogens. Genocide is considered the gravest form of crime against humanity in that it involves the special intent or dolus specialis to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. This crime can be committed in time of peace as well as during armed conflict.
The Genocide Convention of 1948 limits the protected group to national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups because membership of such groups is not easily challenged – it is sometimes automatic, occurring through birth. Groups that one may join through individual effort like political, economic, or professional groups are excluded from this crime. Attempts to expand this protection to social and political groups at the Rome Conference failed (Kittichaisaree 2001).
A national group is a collection of people who share common citizenship as well as reciprocal rights and duties. An ethnic group is one whose members share a common language and culture. A racial group is one whose members are distinguished from other racial groups by hereditary physical traits usually associated with geographical location, irrespective of language, culture or religious consideration. A religious group is one whose members share a common mode of worship or belief.
Membership of a group can be determined subjectively. The perpetrator may adopt either a positive or negative approach in this respect. In the positive approach, the perpetrators choose their victims based on what they believe to be peculiar characteristics pertaining to each group. Negatively, the perpetrators exclude their victims from the group to which they belong, which generally has distinct characteristics from the group of the victims. In the case of Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, the ICTR considered membership of such groups as subjective, since the victims are seen by the perpetrators as belonging to a group scheduled for destruction and in some circumstances, the victims perceive themselves as belonging to the said group. For example, although the Tutsis and Hutus share a common language and culture, they themselves and the Rwandan authorities considered them two distinct ethnic groups.
Membership can equally be determined using the objective test. In the Rutaganda case, the ICTR held the opinion that the requirement of every Rwandan to carry an identity card showing his/her ethnic group – Hutu, Tutsi or Twa – is an objective indicator for distinguishing the Tutsi population as an ethnic group with a distinct identity. The Constitution of Rwanda moreover identified Rwandans by virtue of their ethnic groups, whose membership followed the patrilineal lines of customary law in the country.
Like any crime under national criminal law, the crime of genocide materializes only after the perpetrator’s action (actus reus) coincides with his intention (mens rea). The crime can equally be committed by omission. In the case of Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, the accused was found guilty, among others, for his omissions to act as Prime Minister of Rwanda to stop the ongoing genocide after he was called upon to do so and was aware of the continuing massacre of Tutsis by the Hutus.
In order to convict a person of the crime of genocide, it must be shown that she had the special intention (dolus specialis) to destroy in whole or in part a national ethnic, racial or religious group or that the accused had a clear knowledge that she was participating in genocide, which involves the destruction of at least a part of the protected group. This intention must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to find the perpetrator guilty. In the case of Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic, the accused was found not guilty of genocide as he lacked the specific intention to destroy the group in question.
The court will consider an individual as having the necessary intention to commit genocide by looking at the words uttered as well as her acts, which target members of the protected group. The case of Prosecutor v. Georges Ruggiu is illustrative as the accused – a journalist – was found guilty of genocide by virtue of his messages broadcast on radio inciting genocide in Rwanda.
The words “in whole or in part” may mean that the number of victims must be numerically significant. In other words, the crime would not have taken place if only a few members of the group are affected. This has led some to think that there is a required numerical threshold of victims for the crime to be said to have taken place. The reference to numbers describes the mental element of the crime (the perpetrator’s intention to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group) and not the actual number of victims (Schabas 2004).
According to the Elements of Crimes adopted by the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (PCNICC), the number of victims may be one or more, provided they belong to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and the perpetrator intends to destroy such a group in whole or in part. Genocide occurs if the act took place in a context of similar conduct directed against the protected group or the conduct by its very nature is destructive.
Not every act, no matter how cruel, will amount to genocide. Only the various acts enumerated in the ICC Statute, when committed with the requisite intention, will amount to genocide. These acts, which are discussed below are: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately imposing conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction, preventing birth within the group and forcibly transferring of the group to another group.
THE CASE OF CAMEROON
Since October 2016, Cameroon has been embroiled in a circle of violence in its Northwest and Southwest Regions. This crisis is a resurgence of a repeated and long-standing struggle between the government and the country’s linguistic minority.
In 2016, Anglophone lawyers and teachers went on strike to protest against what they called the “franconization” of the judicial and the education system, a systematic attempt by the central government to erode English common law and the Anglo-Saxon culture in Anglophone parts of the country. This crisis with historical ramification and undertone has degenerated into armed confrontations with important civilian losses.
The “Anglophone issue” has been part of the political life in Cameroon since independence from British and French rule. One of the key issues has always been the question of the right to self-determination of the people of Southern Cameroons. This issue has always created high tension on October 1st of every year, which corresponds to the day when the two Anglophone regions gained independence from the British, 60 years ago. The grievances rose by the Anglophones, range from « discriminatory state policies, to uneven development and attempt to erase their distinctive identity as Anglophones in favour of forced French assimilation».
Since October 1st, 2017, when the government violently repressed massive and popular demonstrations organized by the civil society, the social movements that had lasted almost a year, escalated and slipped into a protracted human rights crisis marred by daily deadly clashes. This was after the use of real bullets and excessive use of tear gas, by government forces which caused the death of innocent civilians. Since then, armed separatist activist attempted to proclaim the birth of a new state carved out of the former British Southern Cameroon called: The “Federal Republic of Ambazonia.” The president of the Republic further responded by declaring war against armed separatist fighters that for about 5 years, has claimed the lives of over 4000 Anglophones including unarmed civilians-women and children, and the disabled. Equally in the conflict, Over 250 villages have been raided and burnt down, more than 700,000 persons internally displaced and over 60,000 refugees displaced to neighbouring Nigeria, and some moving across the Sahara desert and through the Mediterranean Sea and the Mexican routes into Europe and America as asylum seekers.
Due to the severity of the violence and the lives and property lost by the Anglophones, many scholars and activist have attempted to classify the mass atrocity crimes as genocide, perpetrated by the centralized francophone government led by President Paul Biya and his cabinet through the use of the republican army. To many, the violence in Cameroon amounts to genocide as it satisfies all the ingredients enlisted in the Rome Statute.
Many Francophone administrators in the Anglophone section of the country as well as prominent politicians and journalist on various local traditional media and social media platforms have also used hate speech and derogatory language against Anglophones in the country and some urging the government to use scourge earth policy to annihilate the Anglophones in Cameroon. a journalist of Vision 4 TV in Douala, the economic Capital of Cameroon is quoted to have said on live TV “…if it is necessary to restore order and if you are considered a terrorist, you should be killed…it’s time for the government to put in place extremely repressive measures (against Anglophones)…I am urging the government to decree a state of emergency in the two English speaking regions of the country… from 7 am all bars should be closed…there are some Anglophones (in Yaounde) who are happy about what is happening over there (in the Northwest and Southwest region)…I hold the opinion that all Anglophones are in support of the explosions in Bamenda. Even here in Yaounde neighbourhoods which are predominantly Anglophone need to be put under surveillance…if they have already started implementing bombs in Douala, then it’s possible they can do the same in Yaounde…”
The acclamation of violence against Anglophones by some Francophones and regime hardliners has pushed many researchers and human rights activist to opine that the ongoing violence in Cameroon is genocide. However, according to Akem Kelvin Nkwain, the Human Rights Officer at CHRDA, CHRDA neither agrees nor disagrees with the allegations that there is genocide under commission in Cameroon, but we maintain that crimes against humanity have already been committed as revealed by CHRDA in its 2019 Human Rights Report. “Cameroon‘s Unfolding Catastrophe: Evidence of Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity, June 3, 2019.” It is an evidence-based report which details crimes against humanity committed against the civilian population by both the defence and security forces and non-state armed groups.
Crimes against Humanity as featured in the report can be defined as a crime against ‘humaneness.’ A crime that offends certain general principles of law and thus becomes the concern of the international community. It has wide repercussions, beyond international frontiers, or exceeds in magnitude or savagery any limits tolerated by modern civilization (Schwelb 1946). It involves the commission of certain inhumane acts like torture, murder, rape, sexual slavery and persecution when directed at a civilian population as part of a plan or policy to do so.
The world was appalled after witnessing the horrors of the Nazi regime after the Second World War. The drafters of the Nuremberg Charter were confronted with how to respond to such crimes since the classic definition of war crimes was silent on crimes committed by a government against its own citizens. The drafters thus included crimes against humanity defined in article 6(c) of the ICC Statute as murder, extermination, deportation, enslavement as well as other inhumane act committed against any civilian population, before or during the war of persecution based on racial, political or religious grounds, in the execution of or in connection with any crime within the Court’s jurisdiction or not in violation of the laws of the country where they were committed. This definition raises two important elements:
- First, the reference to ‘any’ civilian population meant that crimes committed against a country’s own population were included. This was a ground-breaking achievement because at that time (the 1940s) the principle of state sovereignty was strictly followed and international law generally regulated conduct between states. Little was said concerning the treatment states gave to their citizens.
- Secondly, the requirement of connection to war meant that crimes against humanity could only occur when they have some link to an armed conflict. Therefore, it was treated interchangeably with war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Thirdly, the reference to ‘population’ was understood to create some requirement of scale but the Nuremberg Charter was silent on the precise threshold (Bassiouni 1999).
Equally, a war crime as mentioned above is a serious breach of the rules of international humanitarian law which is applicable during international or non-international armed conflicts. This law comprises rules that aim to protect people who do not or can no longer actively take part in hostilities and control the means and methods of warfare. This law has as some principles which must be respected by the belligerents of armed conflict. They are:
- Persons not taking part in hostilities (civilians and persons hors de combat) are entitled to protection and are treated humanely.
- In their attacks, combatants must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects (the principle of distinction).
- In attacking military objectives, combatants must take necessary measures to prevent or minimise civilian casualties, or refrain from attacks that will cause excessive civilian suffering (the principle of proportionality).
- There are restrictions to the methods and means of conducting war which outlaws dishonourable actions.
These principles appear in some of the most important international instruments of International Humanitarian Law such as the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977.
The most important element for a war crime is the link with armed conflict. An armed conflict exists where there is armed violence between states (international) or between government forces and armed groups on the state’s territory, or between armed groups within a state (non-international). An internal armed conflict may become international if another state intervenes in the conflict or both international and non-international in character if one of the parties in an internal armed conflict acts on behalf of another state. Internal disturbances such as riots, strikes, isolated attacks and terrorist activities do not amount to armed conflict. International humanitarian law applies from the beginning of an armed conflict till the general conclusion of peace in the case of an international armed conflict or until peaceful settlement, in the event of a non-international armed conflict.
WHY DO WE COMMEMORATE THE GENOCIDE AWARENESS MONTH?
- To Prevent The Occurrence Of Genocide:
To prevent genocide and genocidal conflicts, it is critically important to understand their root causes. While conflict has many causes, genocidal conflict is identity-based. Genocide and related atrocities tend to occur in societies with diverse national, racial, ethnic or religious groups that are locked in identity-related conflicts. It is not simply differences in identity, whether real or perceived, that generate conflict, but the implication of those differences in terms of access to power and wealth, services and resources, employment, development opportunities, citizenship and the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. These conflicts are fomented by discrimination, hate speech inciting violence and other violations of human rights.
In terms of prevention, the critical step is to identify the factors (discriminatory practices) in a given situation that lead to or account for acute disparities in the treatment of a diverse population and to seek ways to diminish and eventually eradicate these possible causes of genocidal violence. Given that no country is perfectly homogeneous, genocide is a truly global challenge.
- The Responsibility To Protect:
At the 2005 World Summit, Member States committed to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, as well as their incitement. They agreed that when States require assistance to fulfil that responsibility, the international community must be ready to assist them and when States manifestly fail to protect their populations from those crimes, the international community must be ready to take action, collectively, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Intervention only happens when prevention fails. Therefore, prevention is the basis of the principle of the responsibility to protect.
These three pillars of the responsibility to protect are articulated in the Outcome Document of the World Summit (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) and formulated in the Secretary-General’s 2009 Report (A/63/677) on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. The political commitment made by Member States in 2005 is deeply rooted in international law, including the Genocide Convention.
The Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect:
The Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect work together to advance national and international efforts to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including their incitement. One of their main tasks is to collect information on situations where there may be a risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, based on the risk factors outlined in the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. Due to the sensitive nature of their mandate, much of the Office’s work remains outside of the public eye. However, when the Special Advisers assess that making their concerns public will reduce the risk of atrocity crimes in a specific situation, they do so by issuing public statements and, upon request, by briefing the Security Council.
- Compassion With Victims Of Genocide:
In the light of today’s commemoration, CHRDA is urging the international community and the United Nations to rise up and take pro-active measures to prevent the occurrence of any of the above-mentioned atrocity crimes, given their ugly effects on every society. Haven witnessed the devastating effects on the people of Rwanda, the Jews in Germany, and other parts of the globe, if no strict measures are put in place; these ugly scenarios are bound to occur again.
All in all, article 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 provides that; “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood”. Based on the above mentioned, if all persons will perform their duty, to ensure that the various international crimes are avoided, then the world would have been a place.
The commemoration of today’s event is the best way to honour the lives lost in Rwanda 27 years ago and to commit to our collective responsibility to protect populations wherever they face mass atrocities and to build a world where the international community permits no people to stand alone when threatened by genocide of mass atrocity crimes.
The thoughts of CHRDA are with the Rwandese and all the countries witnessing mass atrocities, including Cameroon, and we are putting this question to the United Nations Human Rights Council; are we waiting for another Rwanda to occur in Cameroon before we fulfil our responsibility to protect?
Berinyuy Cajetan is the founder and publisher of Human Rights and Legal Research Centre (HRLRC) since 2017. He has intensive experience in strategic communications for Civil Society Organizations, campaign and advocacy, and social issues. He has an intensive experiencing in human rights monitoring, documentation and reporting.
