While some witnesses deny that there was an intention to attack civilians, other witnesses explain that the orders to kill were generalised and directed at the "enemy" without any distinction being made between combatants and civilians. Some witnesses say that no instructions were given prior to the attack in relation to the treatment of civilians. They were also ordered to destroy everything in the village, and to "annihilate the whole place as a sign to Congolese." They were to set fire to the village and houses in order to force the population to flee. The orders for the attack were clear: "everything which has breath shouldnt be there at all." Orders were given: "destroy everything, because everybody who was considered as enemy," "we dont want to hear anything, anybody there, anything in Busurungi," and "everything that moves should be killed." The soldiers were then expected to kill anyone they met because the enemy had not shown any pity on them. In the case at hand, the Chamber finds that the evidence provides substantial grounds to believe that the FDLR soldiers were directly ordered to take revenge on both civilians and soldiers, as the name of the operation, i.e. The Chamber further notes that reprisals against the civilian population as such, or individual civilians, are prohibited in all circumstances, regardless of the behaviour of the other party, since "no circumstances would legitimise an attack against civilians even if it were a response proportionate to a similar violation perpetrated by the other party". In such a case, the targeting of the civilian population is not the aim of the attack but only an incidental consequence thereof. The latter scenario must be distinguished from situations where, in violation of the principle of proportionality, a disproportionate attack is intentionally launched with the specific aim of targeting a military objective, with the awareness that incidental loss of life or injury to civilians will or may occur as a result of such an attack. The crime may be perpetrated in any of the two following scenarios: (i) when individual civilians not taking direct part in the hostilities or the civilian population are the sole target of the attack or (ii) when the perpetrator launches the attack with two distinct specific aims: (a) a military objective, within the meaning of articles 51 and 52 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 ("the AP I") and simultaneously, (b) the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in the hostilities. "In the view of the Chamber, the war crime of attacking civilians pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Statute does not presuppose that the civilian population is the sole and exclusive target of the attack. In the Mbarushimana Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, the Pre-Trial Chamber held that: The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |