| Summary: | Includes bibliographical references. === In international criminal law, the application of the principle of concurrent jurisdiction necessitates the existence of two types of Courts: a national court and an international one. As a result of the uniqueness of the Rwandan context, there were more courts hearing matters that arose from the genocide.6 In Rwanda, such cases are tried by ‘conventional courts’ and the ‘Gacaca’ courts. Gacaca is defined as a system of transitional participative community justice, whereby the population is given the chance to speak about the committed atrocities, to prosecute, defend, judge and punish the criminals. The conventional courts are divided into ordinary courts and military courts. All these courts have the jurisdiction to prosecute genocide cases. Genocide cases were therefore heard in three different courts domestically but in concurrence with International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). As a result of the particular context of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, particular issues arise and will be explored in this study.
|
|---|
