Prosecutor v.
Akayesu (1998): Sexual Violence as Genocide
The case of Prosecutor v. The case of Akayesu before the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR) is one of the most important case that enriched the definition of genocide by
including sexual violence. The tribunal stated that acts of rape and sexual violence
performed systematically against Tutsi women aimed at causing them physical and mental
harm, and were genocidal in nature under the provisions of Article 2(2) of the Genocide
Convention. According to ICTR’s judgement, genocide is not only reduced to direct physical
elimination of members of a group but also encompasses any act that results in the physical
or mental harm of the group.
As applied to this paper, the case of Akayesu shows how judicial systems, and therefore
colonial judicial violence, can confirm the four elements of genocide. Just as in the rape
cases of Akayesu, the Denshawai trial used public executions, lashings, and the swift denial
of the right to a fair trial to traumatise the Egyptian fellaheen mentally. This fits into the
definition of genocide under Article 2(2)(b) which includes “imposing conditions of life that
will lead to the physical or mental destruction of the group”.
Srebrenica Genocide Case (2007): Control and State Responsibility: The End of the
Distinction between Effective and Ineffective Control?
The arbitration case of Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.
The judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the cases of Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro is useful for understanding the legal position on the
state responsibility for genocide. According to the ICJ, for state responsibility to be invoked
for genocide, it was enough to prove that the accused acted under the “effective control” of
state authorities.
Applying this principle to the Denshawai trial, it can be safely concluded that the British
colonial authorities were in direct control of the proceedings of the trial and its outcomes.
In contrast to the Srebrenica case, where the ICJ could not determine genocide committed
by Serbia, the Denshawai trial was framed and conducted by British officers. The choice of a
special tribunal, the lack of an opportunity to state their side of the story, and the cruel
punishments suggest that the British state was fully capable of exerting control and had the
intention of doing so over the fellaheen as a class.
