| Forty seven years after the Nuremberg Tribunal, the world began in the 1990's another experience of international criminal justice with the UN ad hoc Tribunals, conceived as subsidiary bodies of the Security Council. This new experience led to the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Unfortunately, the multiple flaws characterizing the proceedings of these ad hoc Tribunals which prevented the ICTR from reaching its objectives of peace and reconciliation through justice in Rwanda, the excessive flexibility of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of these new judicial bodies, as well as the disruptive political interferences, do not help the newly born judicial system acquire the worldwide recognition it normally needs for its full efficiency.;To gain the legitimacy necessary for a system that is envisioned as a mean to help deter human rights violations, and provide the best examples for domestic justice, particularly in countries notorious for their disrespect for the rules of law, it is mandatory to identify all the problems tainting the fairness of its proceedings and fix them for good.;These are the objectives of this dissertation, pursued through a detailed analysis of the ICTR proceedings, done without complacency. The main difficulty of this process is the inability of analysts to focus on the current shortfalls in the midst of the euphoria created by this long-awaited judicial system. As a result, the analysis of this dissertation may seem at odd with the general perception of this nascent judicial system, hailed for its intended ability to end the vicious cycle of human rights violation and impunity. However, the innovative character of the process conducted through this dissertation is certainly the only serious way for the international criminal justice to eschew the negative image and crippling criticisms that could permanently undermine its vital importance and noble objectives. |
