You are on page 1of 2

Calleja, Raymund Paolo S. ID no.

11593113
Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda is a film that gives its spectators a brief idea of Rwandan
Genocide. According to historical records, the Rwandan Genocide happened in the year
1994, wherein the Hutu tribe executed almost a million members of the Tutsi tribe while
the rest of the world looked away and did nothing. The phenomenon included political
corruption, mass violence, and abuses in various forms.

From reading the first six chapters of the text International Humanitarian Law:
Answers to Your Questions, I was able so locate violations found in the film in relation to
International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Although, in order for there to be violations, there
must first be a rule being violated. In this film, the rule of protection specifically
applicable would be the rules on Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). In order for
the rules on NIAC to apply to a certain case, there must be two requirements that must be
met. First is that hostilitiesaretakingplacebetweenthearmedforcesofaStateand
organizednonStatearmedgroups,orbetweensuchgroups.Here,thearmedconflictthat
occurred was between two organized nonState armed groups, satisfying the first
requirementoftherulesonNIAC.Inadditiontothat,theremustalsobeanintensity
levelthatsatisfiestherequirementprovidedforbyInternationalLaw.Inthiscase,the
intensity of the conflict was already reaching a superior level since majority of the
country was already being affected by it, resulting to the satisfaction of the second
requirementaswell.

Nevertheless,thereisalsoadistinctionbetweenNIACswithinthemeaningof
common Article 3 and NIACs falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of
AdditionalProtocolII,dependingonthepartiesinvolvedandtheterritorialcontrolofthe
organizednonStatearmedgroups.Inmyopinion,thecommonArticle3appliestothis
casesinceitisaconflictbetweenorganizednonStategroups,notbetweentheStateand
thedissidentarmedforces.

Beingclearontheapplicableruleinthiscase,InowproceedtotheviolationsI
haverecognized.ThefirstviolationthatIhaveencounteredwouldbethemurderingof
themembersoftheTutsimainlybecauseoftheirrace.CommonArticle3statesthat
during armed conflicts, persons not participating in the conflict should be treated
humanelywithoutanydistinctionastorace,colour,orsex.TheHutusclearlyviolated
thiswhentheymurderedmultipleciviliansmainlybecauseoftheirraceorassociation,or
inotherwords,formerelybeingTutsi.AnotherviolationthatIsawwastheviolationof
thesectionstatingthatitshouldbeprohibitedforthebelligerentstohaveoutrageson
personaldignity,inparticularhumiliatinganddegradingtreatmentagainstpersonsnot
involvedintheconflict.Thiswasalsoviolatedinthemoviesincethebelligerentstreated
everysingleTutsitobecockroacheswhohavenorighttobetreatedwithrespect.They
haveassociatedtheTutsiswithpestswhichisalsoprohibitedunderCommonArticle3.
Lastly,theyviolatedsection2(d)byexecutingmultipleTutsisnotactivelyinvolvedin
theconflictwithouttheaidofjurisdictionoranydecreeofacompetentcourt,takingthe
lawintotheirownhands.

In conclusion, the film was able to portray multiple violations of Common Article
3 of the International Humanitarian Law which is the applicable rule of protection of
Non-International Armed Conflicts between two organized non-State armed forces.