The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was created two years later in 1995, and modeled on the

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was created two years later in 1995, and modeled on the Yugoslavia Tribunal. It was based in Arusha, Tanzania. But it shared an appeals chamber with the ICTY so that appeals went to the Hague. The tribunal was opposed by the Government of Rwanda. Rwanda viewed the tribunal as a losers justice that the UN and the other great powers had sat idly by as the Hutu majority inflicted a premeditated pattern of extermination on the Tutsi minority. In fact, the genocide only ended because the Tutsi rebels overthrew the genocidal Hutu regime. The ICTR was hampered by difficult to investigations because Rwanda was uncooperative. Lacks regard for due process in some cases, errors of strategy by the prosecutor, resource constraints that the Yugoslavia Tribunal also had to a lesser degree. At the Yugoslavia Tribunal, the prosecutor started with the middle ranks prosecuting people at the middle levels in order to build evidence against the bigger fish. Whereas Rwanda, the prosecutor sometimes try to target the bigger fish without sufficient evidence and so the trial limped along very slowly over the next 20 years. Ninety-five individuals were indicted, 59 perpetrators were convicted. This included the head of the hate radio station with broadcasts the list of names of Tutsis to be killed. Like the Nuremberg trial, it created historical record delegitimizing genocidal denialism. To this day, denying the Rwandan genocide is a crime in Rwanda, but also largely disproven because the massive evidence is so overwhelming. The tribunal had some jurisprudential successes. In particular, defining rape as a weapon of war, as a tool of genocide in fact. That using rape in order to impregnate the victims to exterminate their blood lines so that women give birth to children who are of the ethnicity of the perpetrators. The Rwandan Tribunal laid out for the first time that rape could be a form of genocide if it's carried out with that intent to wipe out an ethnicity by impregnating women so that they give birth to children who are of the ethnicity of the perpetrator. That could be a form of genocide. That jurisprudence came out of their Rwandan Tribunal. Viewing rape in general as a weapon of war, the Rwandan Tribunal really focused on women and gender-based violence. That was probably one of its greatest jurisprudential successes. The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals were very expensive, and sat hundreds of miles away from where the crimes took place. New model followed that of the hybrid tribunal. The hybrid tribunal was placed in the country where the atrocities took place. Creating a hybrid domestic and international court, it would try both domestic and international law. This would make it more cost-effective, but also more responsive to the victims' communities who wouldn't be so far away. There have been several examples of hybrid tribunals since the late 1990s. The creation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown was one, although Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was tried in the Hague. This State Court of Bosnia Herzegovina was another hybrid tribunal. The Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia is still in operation. Trying the crimes of the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon does sit in the Hague prosecuting Lebanese law, in particular for the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Currently, there's a new tribunal coming into existence for the Central African Republic. Hissene Habre, the former dictator of Chad was put on trial in Senegal and convicted. Following the hybrid tribunals, although they're still very much a project in progress, internationalized courts were another model that were created. These were even more cost-effective. These were domestic courts that had jurisdiction to try international crimes. They were often for lower-level perpetrators, such as the Regulation 64 Panels in Kosovo, or the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor. In East Timor, the prosecutor had the problem of not being able to get jurisdiction over the perpetrators who were Indonesian, because Indonesia wouldn't turn the perpetrators over. Another court that's just been created are the Specialists Chambers for Kosovo, which sit in the Hague. These will try perpetrators of the Kosovo Liberation Army for war crimes. This is the first time there's ever been an international tribunal created for the victims of an armed conflict. The Kosovo Liberation Army was on the winning side in the war in Kosovo. The fact that it's submitting to a tribunal to try its own perpetrators, it's really quite remarkable in the history of international criminal law.

Please Based on the Reading,

How did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), created in 1994, improve the experience of the Nuremberg trials? What were the ICTR's shortcomings?