Tokyo Tribunal
The International Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Tribunal), on the other hand, did convict Japanese war criminals on charges of rape. However, it stopped short of considering the military sexual slavery of comfort women .
In the case before the Tokyo Tribunal , General Matsui Iwane was indicted for charges that included “mass murder, rape, pillage…”, as he had been the commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Forces, and was commander of Japan’s Central China Expeditionary Force. The Rape of Nanking that unfolded over a six to seven week period, had resulted in thousands of women being raped by the Japanese soldiers.
The Tokyo Tribunal convicted him, holding him responsible for the happenings of the city, as he would have been aware of the atrocities committed by his troops at Nanking and did not take steps to prevent the same. He was convicted under Count 55 for “deliberately and recklessly disregarded their [sic] legal duty to take adequate steps secure the observance and prevent the breaches thereof”. He was sentenced to death by hanging. Although the case regarding the comfort women did not come up before the Far East Tribunal, the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was held in Tokyo from the 8th to 12th December 2000 for the purpose of making a judgment on Japanese military sexual slavery before and during the Second World War. The Tribunal in 2000 was organised by non-governmental organisations in order to redress this issue from an international law and gender justice perspective. The accused involved the Emperor Hirohito, General Matsui Iwane, among others and found them guilty of individual and superior responsibility. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda(ICTR) The Birth of ICTY Following the Second World War, the United Nations was formed, and the world community resolved that never again will they sit by and let another Holocaust happen. However, this promise was going to be broken time and again. The world witnessed the Guatemala’s 36-year long Civil War , Indonesia’s 1965 Massacre , the Khmer Rouge , the Bangladesh’s Liberation War , and many others but chose not to react. The UNSC chose to use the means of sanctions and other equally passive steps to chastise the State party involved. However, in 1992, when news regarding the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia started pouring in, the UNSC was moved to take action. Some attribute it to the fact that the Cold War had thawed by then, some others say it is because of the role played by media in bringing the images of these atrocities to our television screens, but another group of people reason that it was because these crimes took place on European soil and seemed like a real threat to the Westerners. As a result, the UNSC established the UN’s first Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide according to the power vested in it under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Rwandan Genocide …show more content…
Thus, on November 8, 1994, the UNSC set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
Prosecutor v. Tadić
On February 13, 1995, Prosecutor v. Tadić became the first international criminal trial in modern times to prosecute an individual (Duško Tadić) on the count of sexual violence as a crime against humanity . On May 7, 1997, the ICTY found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (under Article 5 of the Statute for persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds and inhumane acts), and violations of the laws or customs of war (under Article 3 of the Statute for cruel treatment). Thus, although rape was one of the counts he was charged under, the judgment found him guilty on counts other than of rape.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu
On September 2, 1998 when the Trial Chamber gave its judgment in Jean-Paul Akayesu’s case, it was significant on multiple counts. In the initial indictment, the Prosecutor had not included the count of sexual violence. It was only after the Trial Chamber granted leave to amend the indictment that rape was included as a crime against humanity under Count 13. The Trial Chamber found Akayesu guilty on the count of rape by attributing command responsibility to him for the acts of those under
The International Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Tribunal), on the other hand, did convict Japanese war criminals on charges of rape. However, it stopped short of considering the military sexual slavery of comfort women .
In the case before the Tokyo Tribunal , General Matsui Iwane was indicted for charges that included “mass murder, rape, pillage…”, as he had been the commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Forces, and was commander of Japan’s Central China Expeditionary Force. The Rape of Nanking that unfolded over a six to seven week period, had resulted in thousands of women being raped by the Japanese soldiers.
The Tokyo Tribunal convicted him, holding him responsible for the happenings of the city, as he would have been aware of the atrocities committed by his troops at Nanking and did not take steps to prevent the same. He was convicted under Count 55 for “deliberately and recklessly disregarded their [sic] legal duty to take adequate steps secure the observance and prevent the breaches thereof”. He was sentenced to death by hanging. Although the case regarding the comfort women did not come up before the Far East Tribunal, the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was held in Tokyo from the 8th to 12th December 2000 for the purpose of making a judgment on Japanese military sexual slavery before and during the Second World War. The Tribunal in 2000 was organised by non-governmental organisations in order to redress this issue from an international law and gender justice perspective. The accused involved the Emperor Hirohito, General Matsui Iwane, among others and found them guilty of individual and superior responsibility. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda(ICTR) The Birth of ICTY Following the Second World War, the United Nations was formed, and the world community resolved that never again will they sit by and let another Holocaust happen. However, this promise was going to be broken time and again. The world witnessed the Guatemala’s 36-year long Civil War , Indonesia’s 1965 Massacre , the Khmer Rouge , the Bangladesh’s Liberation War , and many others but chose not to react. The UNSC chose to use the means of sanctions and other equally passive steps to chastise the State party involved. However, in 1992, when news regarding the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia started pouring in, the UNSC was moved to take action. Some attribute it to the fact that the Cold War had thawed by then, some others say it is because of the role played by media in bringing the images of these atrocities to our television screens, but another group of people reason that it was because these crimes took place on European soil and seemed like a real threat to the Westerners. As a result, the UNSC established the UN’s first Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide according to the power vested in it under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The Rwandan Genocide …show more content…
Thus, on November 8, 1994, the UNSC set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
Prosecutor v. Tadić
On February 13, 1995, Prosecutor v. Tadić became the first international criminal trial in modern times to prosecute an individual (Duško Tadić) on the count of sexual violence as a crime against humanity . On May 7, 1997, the ICTY found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (under Article 5 of the Statute for persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds and inhumane acts), and violations of the laws or customs of war (under Article 3 of the Statute for cruel treatment). Thus, although rape was one of the counts he was charged under, the judgment found him guilty on counts other than of rape.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu
On September 2, 1998 when the Trial Chamber gave its judgment in Jean-Paul Akayesu’s case, it was significant on multiple counts. In the initial indictment, the Prosecutor had not included the count of sexual violence. It was only after the Trial Chamber granted leave to amend the indictment that rape was included as a crime against humanity under Count 13. The Trial Chamber found Akayesu guilty on the count of rape by attributing command responsibility to him for the acts of those under