A. Devos, ‘La pratique récente du pôle crimes contre l’humanité, crimes et délits de guerre au Parquet de Paris’, in J. Fernandez and O. de Frouville (eds), Les mutations de la justice pénale internationale (Pedone, 2018) 171–177, at 171. See also M. du Plessis, ‘The Future of International Criminal Justice is Domestic’, iLawyer, 17 September 2014, available online at ilawyerblog.com/future-international-criminal-justice-domestic/#:∼:text=At%20the%20heart%20of%20this,to%20be%20in%20one’s%20jurisdiction (visited 27 September 2025).
See M.-H. Girard, ‘The Transposition of International Criminal Law Concepts into National Jurisdictions: The Case of Genocide’, 41 Comparative Legilinguistics (2020) 71–96, at 78.
E. Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophic Essay (1795), translated by M. Campbell Smith (George Allen and Unwin, 1917).
L. van den Herik and C. Stahn (eds), The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2012); E. Van Sliedregt and S. Vasiliev (eds), Pluralism in International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2014). For a review of both books, see M. Coleman, ‘Larissa van den Herik and Carsten Stahn (eds), The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law Elies van Sliedregt and Sergey Vasiliev (eds), Pluralism in International Criminal Law, Journal of International Criminal Justice’, 16 Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICJ) (2018) 668–672.
Coleman, supra note 4, at 669.
M. Delmas-Marty, Le Pluralisme ordonné (Le Seuil, 2009) at 9. See also the English translation; M. Delmas-Marty, Ordering Pluralism: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Transnational Legal World, translated from the French by N. Norberg (Hart Publishing, 2009).
Van den Herik and Stahn, supra note 4.
Ibid.
Van Sliedregt and Vasiliev, supra note 4, at 9.
Ibid., at 13.
Ibid.
Ibid., at 10–14.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6.
Ibid., at 27. Free translation of: ‘chercher une issue par-delà relatif et universel’.
Ibid., at 32.
Ibid., at 69–99.
Ibid., at 84.
Ibid., at 72.
Van Sliedregt and Vasiliev, supra note 4, at 17–21.
For the practice of other states (e.g. Italy, Finland, or the Netherlands), see also F. Jeßberger, C. Meloni, and M. Crippa (eds), Domesticating International Law: Reflections on the Italian and German Experiences (Routledge, 2023); T. Castelijn et al., ‘The Position of Victims in Trials Concerning Core International Crimes in the Netherlands: Issues from Case Law and Possible Solutions’, in this Special Issue of the Journal (https://academic.oup.com/jicj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jicj/mqaf046/8307715?redirectedFrom=fulltext); C.H. Weeler, ‘Making the Local Global: Lessons the International Criminal Court Can Learn from Finnish Universal Jurisdiction Trials’, in this Special Issue of the Journal (https://academic.oup.com/jicj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jicj/mqag001/8435758).
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 78.
C. Fourçans, ‘Le réinvestissement de l’État dans la répression des crimes internationaux’, in D. Lochak (ed.), Mutations de l’État et protection des droits de l’homme (Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 2013) 87–100.
Notably, by defining three core international crimes and by establishing the centrality of individual criminal responsibility (Arts 6–7 Nuremberg Charter). See also A.-M. La Rosa, Dictionnaire de droit international pénal (Graduate Institute Publications, 1998), at 93–95; C. Tomuschat, ‘The Legacy of Nuremberg’, 4 JICJ (2006) 830–844.
Judgment, Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998.
Arts 9 ICTYSt. and 8 ICTRSt.
Rule 11bis ICTY RPE (as amended 30 September 2002); Rule 11bis ICTR RPE. See Decision on Referral of Case Under Rule 11 bis, Stanković (IT-96-23/2-PT), Referral Bench, 17 May 2005, § 96.
A. Costi, ‘Hybrid Tribunals as a Viable Transitional Justice Mechanism to Combat Impunity in Post-Conflict Situations’, 22 New Zealand Universities Law Review (2006) 213–239. See also O. Martin-Ortega and J. Herman, ‘Interactions and Resistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cambodia’, in O.P. Richmond et al. (eds), Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-liberalism (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) 73–87.
L.-A. Dickinson, ‘The Promise of Hybrid Courts’, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003) 295–310, at 295.
Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 27 October 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006).
Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Službeni glasnik Bosne i Hercegovine (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina), 49/09. See also T. Abdulhak, ‘Building Sustainable Capacities — From an International Tribunal to a Domestic War Crimes Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina’, 9 International Criminal Law Review (ICLR) (2009) 333–358.
Law on the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, 3 August 2015 (05/6-053). See also M.S. Cataleta, ‘The Kosovo Specialist Chambers, an International Tribunal Inside the National Judicial System’, 3 JICJ (2022) 1–9; C. Stahn, ‘Tribunals Are Dead, Long Live Tribunals: MICT, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Turn to New Hybridity’, EJIL:Talk!, 23 September 2016, available online at www.ejiltalk.org/tribunals-are-dead-long-live-tribunals-mict-the-kosovo-specialist-chambers-and-the-turn-to-new-hybridity/ (visited 25 July 2025).
Art. 17 ICCSt. See also W. Burke-White, ‘Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of International Justice’, 49 Harvard International Law Journal (2008) 53–108; E. Evenson et al., ‘The ICC’s Impact on National Justice: Can the ICC Prosecutor Catalyse Domestic Cases?’, EJIL:Talk!, 6 December 2018, available online atwww.ejiltalk.org/the-iccs-impact-on-national-justice-can-the-iccprosecutor-catalyze-domestic-cases (visited 25 July 2025).
See ‘Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review’, TRIAL International, 2025, available online at https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/03_TRIAL_UJAR_2025_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf (visited 27 September 2025).
Art. II Genocide Convention.
Art. 7 ICCSt. The definition in the ICC Statute lists as an underlying act ‘other inhumane acts of a similar character’.
Art. 4 ICTYSt.
Art. 2 ICTRSt.
Art. 17 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1996.
Art. 5 Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on the international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other international crimes, Ljubljana, 26 May 2023.
Arts 9 ICCSt. and 6, Elements of Crimes.
S. Garibian, ‘By Men, Not Gods: The (Hidden) Evolutionary Interpretation of International Criminal Law in Light of Extrinsic Sources’, in G. Abi-Saab et al. (eds), Evolutionary Interpretation and International Law (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019) 153–166, at 156; B.K. Schramm, La Fiction juridique et la juge: Contribution à une autre herméneutique de la Cour internationale de justice (Bruylant, 2018) at 112.
For instance, the objective definitions of the four protected groups first emerged in ICTR jurisprudence in Akayesu (see Judgment, Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998). For further doctrinal developments concerning the lessons of the ad hoc tribunals, see also P. Akhavan, ‘The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence’, 3 JICJ (2005) 989–1006; B. Hola et al., ‘Punishment for Genocide—Exploratory Analysis of ICTR Sentencing’, 11 ICLR (2011) 745–773; M. Jarvis and A. Tieger, ‘Applying the Genocide Convention at the ICTY: The Influence of Paradigms Past’, 14 JICJ (2016) 857–877; C. Sinatra, ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Application of Genocide’, 5 ICLR (2005) 417–430.
Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Al-Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009.
R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944).
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New York, 9 December 1948 (GA Res. 260 A (III), 9 December 1948).
See D. Groome, ‘The Law of Genocide and Atrocities Committed against the Herero and Nama Peoples’, in A. Adeboyejo et al. (eds), Contemporary International Criminal Law Issues (Springer, 2023) 133–176.
For instance, Judgment, Barbie (86-92714), Cour Suprême de Paris (Paris Criminal Law Chamber of the Supreme Court), 25 November 1986 (see D. Rezai Shadhaji, ‘L’exercice de la compétence universelle en tant qu’obligation erga omnes afin de réprimer les crimes de jus cogens’, e-Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 2017, available online at www.penal.org/sites/default/files/Rezai,%20Daniel,%20l’obligation%20erga%20omnes%20formateado_0.pdf (visited 25 July 2025): ‘à cet effet, on peut nommer des nombreuses affaires comme Eichmann 1961, Demanjuk 1985, Saric 1994, Pinochet 1999, Butare Four 2001, Ely Ould Dah 2005, Khaled Ben Saïd 2010 et Colonel Kumar Lama 2015.’
It is notably the case of the Leipzig war crimes trials held after World War I; see F. Jeßberger, ‘A Short History of Prosecuting Crimes under International Law in Germany’, 21 JICJ (2023) 779–792.
Judgment, Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998.
Art. I Genocide Convention.
W.A. Schabas, ‘National Courts Finally Begin to Prosecute Genocide, the “Crime of Crimes”’, 1 JICJ (2013) 39–63. See also F. Bellivier, M. Eudes, and I. Fouchard, Droit des crimes internationaux (Presses Universitaires de France, 2018).
See Judgment, Cvjetkovic (AZ 9 Bs 195/94), Oberlandesgericht Linz (Linz Court of Appeal), 1 June 1994; Judgment, Cvjetkovic (15 Os 99/95), Oberster Gerichtshof, 13 July 1994.
See Judgment, Djajic (3 St 20), Bayerisches Oberlandesgericht (Bavarian Court of Appeal), 23 May 1997; Judgment, Jorgić (2 StE 8/96), Oberlandesgricht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Court of Appeal), 26 September 1997; Ruling, Jorgić (3 StR 215/98), Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Court), 30 April 1999; Ruling, Jorgić (2 BvR 1290/99), Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court), 12 December 2000; Jorgić v. Germany (74613/01), ECtHR, 12 July 2007; Ruling, Sokolovic (3 StR 372/00), Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Court), 21 February 2001.
In 2001, a first trial was brought before the Brussels Assize Court against four Rwandan. They were ultimately convicted solely on charges of war crimes; see L. Reydams, ‘Belgium’s First Application of Universal Jurisdiction: The Butare Four Case’, 2 JICJ (2003) 428–436. Other trials followed; see Ph. Meire and D. Vandermeersch, Génocide rwandais: le récit des quatre procès devant la Cour d’assises de Bruxelles (La Charte, 2011). See also D. Vandermeersch, ‘Prosecuting International Crimes in Belgium’, 3 JICJ (2005) 400–421; J. Wouters and S. Verhoeven, ‘The Domestic Prosecution of Genocide’, in P. Behrens and R. Henham (eds), Elements of Genocide (Routledge, 2013) 177–206.
Reasoning Judgment, Neretsé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 19 December 2019; Criminal Judgment, Neretsé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 20 December 2019.
In 2023, Séraphin Twahirwa and Pierre Basabosé were found guilty of the crime of genocide, Reasoning Judgment, Twahirwa and Basabosé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 19 December 2023; Criminal Judgment, Twahirwa, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 22 December 2023; Internment Decision, Basabosé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 22 December 2023. In 2024, the Court of Assizes sentenced Emmanuel Nkunduwimye to 25 years’ imprisonment for genocide, Reasoning Judgment, Nkunduwimye, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 6 June 2024; Criminal Judgment, Nkunduwimye, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 10 June 2024.
Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 14 March 2014; Appeal Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Bobigny (Bobigny Court of Assizes), 3 December 2016.
Judgment, Rwamucyo, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 31 October 2024.
Judgment, A.-J. (5-StE 1/20-4-1/20), Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal), 30 November 2021; Judgment, A.-J. (3 StR 230/22), Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Court), 30 November 2022. See also S. Bock, ‘The German Code of Crimes Against International Law at Twenty: Overview and Assessment of Modern German International Criminal Law’, 21 JICJ (2023) 793–813; F. Royen, ‘Des montagnes irakiennes du Sinjar à Karlsruhe: à propos de la consécration prétorienne du génocide des Yézidis’, 3 Revue de la faculté de droit de l’Université de Liège (2023) 435–458, at 437. On the specific issue of MTO, in the context of the prosecution of core international crimes, see W. Fortin and L. Quackelbeen, ‘The Use or Misuse of Terrorist Membership Labels for the Prosecution of Core International Crimes’ in this Special Issue of the Journal (https://academic.oup.com/jicj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jicj/mqaf043/8307714).
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 70.
T. Hoffman, ‘The Domestic Definitions of the Crime of Genocide: A Dizzying Diversity’, Opinio Iuris, 17 June 2020, available online at https://opiniojuris.org/2020/06/17/the-domestic-definitions-of-the-crime-of-genocide-a-dizzying-diversity (visited 25 July 2024).
At times, judges do not apply the national legal definition of genocide as it stands. This is particularly evident in Lithuania, as will be discussed further below, where the domestic definition, adopted after independence, diverges from the 1948 definition by including an additional protected group.
The interpretation adopted by the ICTR and ICTY is that dolus specialis is characterized by an intention to destroy the group physically or biologically, see Judgment, Semanza (ICTR-96-13-T), Trial Chamber III, 15 May 2003, § 315; Judgment, Kajelijeli (ICTR-98-44A-T), Trial Chamber II, 1 December 2003, § 808; Judgment, Krstić (IT-98-33-T), Trial Chamber, 2 August 2001, § 580; Judgment, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18), Trial Chamber, 24 March 2016, § 553. The same applies to the ICJ, which affirmed a narrow, strict interpretation; Judgment, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), ICJ, 3 February 2015, §§ 134–136. For further doctrinal developments concerning the interpretation of the genocidal mens rea, see M. Elewa Badar, ‘Drawing the Boundaries of Mens Rea in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’, 6 ICLR (2006) 313–348; W.A. Schabas, ‘Mens rea and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’, 37 New England Law Review (2003) 1015–1036.
Hoffman, ‘The Domestic Definitions’, supra note 61.
T. Hoffman, ‘The Crime of Genocide in Its (Nearly) Infinite Domestic Variety’, in M. Odello and P. Łubiński (eds), The Concept of Genocide in International Criminal Law: Developments after Lemkin (Routledge, 2020) 67–97, at 71: ‘Racial groups are not included in the definition of genocide in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay and Peru; national groups are missing from the criminal code of Nicaragua: while ethnic groups are excluded from the criminal law frameworks of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Oman.’
Hoffman, ‘The Domestic Definitions’, supra note 61.
Art. 211-1 French Criminal Code. It defines the crime of genocide as follows: ‘Genocide consists of committing or causing to be committed, as part of the execution of a concerted plan aimed at the total or partial destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, or a group determined based on any other arbitrary criterion, one of the following acts against members of that group.’ Free translation of: ‘Constitue un génocide le fait, en exécution d'un plan concerté tendant à la destruction totale ou partielle d'un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux, ou d'un groupe déterminé à partir de tout autre critère arbitraire, de commettre ou de faire commettre, à l'encontre de membres de ce groupe, l'un des actes suivants.’
See Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 70.
Judgment, Jelisić (IT-95-10-T), Trial Chamber, 14 December 1999, § 82; Judgment, Kayishema and Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1-T), Trial Chamber II, 21 May 1999, §§ 96–97. See also G. Mettraux, International Crimes: Law and Practice. Volume I: Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2019) at 182–189.
M. Delmas-Marty et al., ‘La réception des crimes contre l’humanité en droit interne’, in M. Delmas-Marty et al. (eds), Le Crime contre l’Humanité (Presses Universitaires de France, 2013) 44–79.
This is not always the case, as national case law is sometimes interpreted in a similar way to the international definition. When analysing the actus reus, it is possible to conclude that there is an underlying crime if there is only one victim. This absence of a numerical threshold, highlighted by international practice and the Elements of Crimes of the ICC Statute, is also confirmed by German practice and French practice, see Ruling (25-81.446), Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 7 May 2025; K. Derouiche, ‘La qualification de génocide peut-elle être retenue en cas de victime unique?’, Village justice, 20 May 2025, available online at https://www.village-justice.com/articles/qualification-genocide-peut-elle-etre-retenue-cas-victime-unique,53421.html (visited 8 December 2025). It also highlights the difference to be made with genocidal intent, namely ‘the intent to destroy at least a substantial part of the group’.
Mozambique is the only country to have removed the ‘intent to destroy’ requirement from its domestic law; Art. 160(2)(j) Criminal Code of the Republic of Mozambique. See Hoffman, ‘The Crime of Genocide’, supra note 65, at 86.
See N. Kersting, ‘La poursuite pénale du génocide rwandais devant les juridictions allemandes: L’intention de détruire dans l’affaire Onesphore Rwabukombe’, La Revue des Droits de l’Homme, October 2016, available online at https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/2539 (visited 25 July 2025); E. Novic, ‘Physical Biological or Socio Cultural “Destruction” in Genocide? Unravelling the Legal Underpinnings of Conflicting Interpretations’, 17 Journal of Genocide Research (2015) 63–82.
Judgment, A.-J. (5-StE 1/20-4-1/20), Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal), 30 November 2021, § 717. See E. Novic, The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Ibid., § 17. Free translation of: ‘Um die vollständige Vernichtung der jesidischen Religion, des Jesidentums als solchem und seiner Angehörigen zu erreichen’.
Judgment, Jorgić (2 StE 8/96), Oberlandesgricht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Court of Appeal), 26 September 1997; Ruling, Jorgić (3 StR 215/98), Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Court), 30 April 1999; Ruling, Jorgić (2 BvR 1290/99), Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court), 12 December 2000; Ruling, Jorgić v. Germany (74613/01), ECtHR, 12 July 2007. See also L. Berster, ‘The Alleged Non-existence of Cultural Genocide: A Response to the Croatian v. Serbia Judgment’, 13 JICJ (2015) 677–692, at 679.
See M. Attila Hoare, ‘A Case Study in Underachievement: The International Courts and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina’, 6 Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (2011) 81–97, at 82.
Ibid.; Judgment, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro: Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICJ, 26 February 2007, 87–134.
See Attila Hoare, supra note 77, at 82; E. Becirevic, ‘More Than a “Local Genocide”’, Institute for War and Peace Reporting (25 July 2008), available online at https://iwpr.net/global-voices/more-local-genocide (visited 10 February 2026).
Ruling, Jorgić v. Germany (74613/01), ECtHR, 12 July 2007, §§ 29, 104. See also Attila Hoare, supra note 77, at 82.
Ibid., §§ 105–116.
See Kersting, supra note 73, § 45.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 78–79.
Lithuanian case law reports the prosecution and conviction of two individuals for genocide; Vasiliauskas: Judgment, Vasiliauskas, Kauno apygardos teismas (Kaunas Regional Court), 4 February 2004; Appeal judgment, Vasiliauskas, Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuanian Court of Appeal), 21 September 2004; Ruling, Vasiliauskas (2K-158/2005), Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania), 22 February 2005; Ruling, Vasiliauskas (KT11-N4/2014), Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 18 March 2014; and Drèlingas: Judgment, Drelingas Kauno apygardos teismas (Kaunas Regional Court), April 2015; Ruling, Drelingas (2K-P-18-648/2016), Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania), 12 April 2016. For a doctrinal analysis of these convictions, see R. Satkauskas, ‘Soviet Genocide Trials in the Baltic States: The Relevance of International Law’, 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2004) 388–409.
Judgment, Vasiliauskas, Kauno apygardos teismas (Kaunas Regional Court), 4 February 2004, § 179.
It should be noted that when the definition of the crime of genocide was first incorporated into Lithuanian legislation in 1992, it omitted political groups. It was only later, through a legislative amendment in 1998, that the political group was introduced. This broader definition was subsequently codified (Art. 99 Lithuanian Criminal Code).
Lithuania declared independence from the Soviet Union on 11 March 1990, long after the atrocities committed against Lithuanian partisans during the Soviet occupation.
Ruling, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (35343/05), GC ECtHR, 20 October 2015, § 191. For a doctrinal analysis of the dialectic between national court and the ECtHR, see N. Bruskina, ‘The Crime of Genocide against the Lithuanian Partisans: A Dialogue Between the Council of Europe and the Lithuanian Courts’, 5 European Papers (2020) 137–148.
Ruling, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (35343/05), GC ECtHR, 20 October 2015, § 181.
Ibid., §§ 146, 149–150.
Ibid., § 152. For a doctrinal analysis, see J. Zilinskas, ‘Drélingas v. Lithuania (ECHR): Ethno-Political Genocide Confirmed?’, EJIL:Talk!, 15 April 2019, available online at www.ejiltalk.org/drelingas-v-lithuania-echr-ethno-political-genocide-confirmed/ (visited 25 July 2025).
Ruling, Drélingas v. Lithuania (28859/16), GC ECtHR, 12 March 2019.
Appeal judgment, Jelisić (IT-95-10-A), Appeals Chamber, 5 July 2001, § 48. See also X. Pacreau, ‘L’interdiction du crime de génocide, aspects juridiques’, 1 Histoire de la Justice (2022) 133–143, at 133.
Ibid.
Art. 6 Elements of Crimes.
Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, supra note 43, §§ 119, 124, 128–133.
Ch. Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements et éléments constitutifs du crime de génocide’, 9–10 Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie (2020) 965–975, at 972–973.
W.A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes (2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, 2008), at 243–256.
Hoffman, ‘The Crime of Genocide’, supra note 65, at 72–73.
Art. 211-1 French Criminal Code.
Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 14 March 2014; Appeal Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Bobigny (Bobigny Court of Assizes), 3 December 2016.
Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 14 March 2014, at 2: ‘the existence of a coordinated plan in this campaign to exterminate the Tutsi community emerges from the same elements as those used for the crime against humanity’. Free translation of: ‘l’existence d’un plan concerté dans cette course à l’extermination de la communauté tutsie ressort des mêmes éléments que pour le crime contre l’humanité’. See also Judgment, Rwamucyo, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 30 October 2024, at 2: ‘in execution of a coordinated plan aimed at the total or partial destruction of a group’. Free translation of: ‘en exécution d’un plan concerté tendant à le destruction totale ou partielle d’un group’.
Ibid.
See A. Devos, ‘Trente ans après le génocide perpétré contre les Tutsi: les défis juridiques’, 31 Revue des droits et libertés fondamentaux (2024) at 1, available online at https://revuedlf.com/dossier/trente-ans-apres-le-genocide-perpetre-contre-les-tutsi-les-defis-juridiques/ (visited 25 July 2025).
See Ch. Deprez, Crimes internationaux — Le droit et la pratique belges (Larcier Intersentia, 2025) at 191; Y. Cartuyvels, ‘La justice belge face au génocide rwandais: la symbolique de la compétence universelle en question’, 8 Oñati Socio-legal Series (2017) 419–436, at 419, 425, 427, available online at https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/download/914/1106/0 (visited 30 September 2025).
See Judgment, Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, § 127.
Reasoning Judgment, Neretsé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 19 December 2019; Criminal Judgment, Neretsé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 20 December 2019.
See Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements’, supra note 103, at 970–974.
It cannot be asserted that the customary criminalization of genocide necessitates the existence of such a plan; ibid., at 971–973.
Ruling, Neretsé, Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 27 May 2020.
Referral order, Twahirwa and Basabosé, Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal), 19 September 2022.
Criminal Judgment, Nkunduwimye, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 10 June 2024.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 77.
Ibid., at 78.
Ibid., at 77.
Art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 72.
Art. 38 ICJ Statute.
Advisory Opinion, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICJ Reports 23, 1951.
See J. Wouters and S. Verhoeven, ‘The Prohibition of Genocide as a Norm of Ius Cogens and Its Implications for the Enforcement of the Law of Genocide’, 5 ICLR (2005) 401–416, at 401; R. Shaghaji, ‘Les crimes de jus cogens, le refus de l’immunité des hauts représentants des États étrangers et l’exercice de la compétence universelle’, 28 Revue Québecoise de Droit international (2015) 143–171.
ILC, Draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) (2022, II-2) at 2. See also A. Lagerwall, ‘Jus Cogens’, Oxford Bibliographies, 2015, available online at www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0124.xml (visited 25 July 2024).
See E. Fronza, ‘Le droit des crimes internationaux et Mireille Delmas-Marty’, 4 Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé (2022) 757–765, at 757. Free translation of: ‘les études de Mireille Delmas-Marty nous révèlent que “même les droits dits indérogeables, ou les crimes supranationaux ne sont pas toujours compris de façon uniforme”’.
Art. V Genocide Convention.
Hoffman, ‘The Domestic Definitions’, supra note 61.
See Mettraux, supra note 69, at 1–5; A.K.A. Greenwalt, ‘The Pluralism of International Criminal Law’, 86 Indiana Law Journal (2011) 1064–1129.
Fronza, supra note 128, at 757.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 72; see also E. Fronza and E. Malarino, ‘L’effet harmonisateur du statut de la Cour pénale internationale’, in M. Delmas-Marty et al. (eds), Les Chemins de l’harmonisation pénale (Société de Législation Comparée, 2008) 65–80.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 72.
Ibid., at 77.
E. David, ‘Les conséquences du Statut de la Cour pénale internationale pour la répression en droit belge’ in H.-D. Bosly et al. (eds), 6 Actualité du droit international humanitaire, les dossiers de la RDPC (La Charte, 2001) 73–92, at 83, 85; Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements’, supra note 103, at 974.
Ibid.
Ibid. See also D. Vandermeersch, ‘Droit belge’, in A. Cassese and M. Delmas-Marty (eds), Juridictions nationales et crimes internationaux (Presses Universitaires de France, 2002) 69–119, at 81; K.L. Doherty and T.L.H. McCormack, ‘Complementarity as a Catalyst for Comprehensive Domestic Penal Legislation’, 5 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy (1999) 147–180.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 77. Free translation of: ‘Mais la compatibilité n’est pas une stricte conformité de la règle nationale avec le standard international’.
The French Criminal Code entered into force on the 1 March 1994.
Arts 376–377 Guatemala’s Criminal Code.
Delmas-Marty, ‘Le Pluralisme ordonné’, supra note 6, at 93.
Ruling (13-86.631), Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 26 February 2014; Ruling (13-87.888), Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 26 February 2014; Ruling (13-87.846), Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 26 February 2014. See also, for a detailed analysis of these decisions, C. Fonteix, ‘Génocide rwandais: le principe de légalité fait obstacle à l’extradition’, Dalloz Actualité, 12 March 2014, available online at www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/genocide-rwandais-principe-de-legalite-fait-obstacle-l-extradition (visited 25 July 2025).
See e.g. the reasoning of the French Court of Cassation in the Klaus Barbie Case (Ruling, Barbie (83-94.425), Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation), 26 January 1984).
Judgment (BC0287), Rechtbank The Hague, 24 July 2007. See also L. Van Herik, ‘A Quest for Jurisdiction and an Appropriate Definition of Crime: Mpambara before the Dutch Courts’, 7 JICJ (2009) 1117–1131.
K.S. Gallant, The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009), at 358.
Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements’, supra note 103, at 967.
Loi du 10 février 1999 relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire, M.B., 26 March 1999.
See P. D’Argent, ‘La loi du 10 février 1999 relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire’, 27 Journal des Tribunaux (1999) 549–555.
Reasoning Judgment, Neretsé, Cour d’Assises (Court of Assizes), 19 December 2019.
Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements’, supra note 103, at 967.
Ibid.
Ibid., at 971.
Ruling, Vasiliauskas (KT11-N4/2014), Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 18 March 2014.
Ibid., § 125.
Appeal Judgment, Vasiliauskas, Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuanian Court of Appeal), 21 September 2004, §§ 35–36, 179.
Ruling, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (35343/05), GC ECtHR, 20 October 2015, §§ 175–178.
Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Paris (Paris Court of Assizes), 14 March 2014, at 2; Appeal Judgment, Simbikangwa, Cour d’Assises de Bobigny (Bobigny Court of Assizes), 3 December 2016, at 2.
This also points to a horizontal dynamic operating between states.
Deprez, ‘À propos des fondements’, supra note 103, at 972–973.
Ruling, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (35343/05), GC ECtHR, 20 October 2015, § 179.
