Abstract:
The thesis of this paper is that the trial against Nahimana et al before the ICTR, better
known as the “Media Trial”, can be considered as a helpful precedence in
international criminal law ever since the Appeals Chamber judgment from 2007.
To answer the question, the author challenges the open legal questions, the
ICTR had to judge about in Nahimana regarding the crime of direct and public
incitement to commit genocide. Both in the paper and in the judgment this crime is
central. The point is not only how to define the elements. The name “Media Trial” but
was especially awarded because directors of the media were held responsible.
Thereby the paper makes clear that radio and newspaper directors can be held liable
under the doctrine of superior responsibility. Furthermore important is the question
how the nature of the crime should be defined and which ideas of law are decisive for
the interpretation of incitement. It shows that there is an own international law of
incitement. In the application of this international incitement law, the Trial Chamber
made several mistakes. It defined incitement as a continuing crime and held that
ambiguous speeches can constitute a direct incitement. Only the decision that
incitement needs no causal link between the crime and the effect (genocide) was
completely positive and necessary. However, these wrong decisions were appealed by
the Appeals Chamber, which was important for the development of incitement.
