Genocide: What do the charges against Dr Bajinya actually mean?

When prosecutors accuse someone of genocide, it does not necessarily mean they allege that the person personally killed someone. In the case of Dr Vincent Bajinya, also known as Vincent Brown, British prosecutors allege that his role was connected to acts of murder and genocide carried out by others during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Bajinya faces one count of conduct ancillary to genocide and six counts of conduct ancillary to murder as a crime against humanity under Section 52 of the UK’s International Criminal Court Act 2001. But what does “conduct ancillary to genocide” mean, and how can someone be held responsible for genocide-related crimes without having carrying out the killings themselves? ALSO READ: “The passage of time matters”: scholar on challenges of delayed Genocide trial Speaking during an interview with The New Times’ The Context Podcast, Alice Uwagaga Urusaro Karekezi, a lawyer and genocide scholar, explained that mass crimes can involve different levels of participation. “There are the planners. The planners, the top leaders who are involved,” Karekezi said. She explained that others might be involved in organising or directing the crimes, while another group may physically carry them out. “Most of the time, they don't kill physically,” she said of the masterminds or the people in positions of authority who influence others through orders, instructions or messages that encourage them to act. “They shape the opinion towards that end,” Karekezi said. Different roles in a genocide According to Karekezi, understanding responsibility for genocide requires looking at the different roles people can play in organising and carrying out mass crimes. She compared the process to military structures, where decisions can be made at strategic and operational levels before being implemented at the ground level. Others, she explained, may organise the means through which those decisions are implemented, while people at the lowest level may physically execute the crimes. This distinction is important in understanding the charges facing Bajinya. The CPS alleges that he directed and incited acts of murder and genocide carried out by others. The allegations therefore concern what prosecutors say was his role in influencing or directing criminal acts, rather than an allegation that he personally carried out every act. The Akayesu case Karekezi pointed to the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu, the former mayor of Taba commune, as an important example of how a person's position and influence can become relevant in a genocide case. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Akayesu in 1998. His case became a landmark in international criminal law after the tribunal recognised rape and sexual violence as acts that could constitute genocide and crimes against humanity. Karekezi, who was also involved in advocacy around the case, said Akayesu's position as mayor was significant because of the authority he exercised within the community. She recalled that Akayesu did not personally carry out the sexual violence for which evidence was presented before the tribunal. However, his conduct and position were examined in determining his responsibility. Karekezi recalled one statement attributed to Akayesu during the events in Taba “Ntimuzongere kumbaza uko abatutsikazi bameze,” which was translated during the proceedings as, “Don't ask me again how Tutsi women taste like.” For Karekezi, such statements demonstrated how people in positions of authority could send messages that influenced the conduct of others. “It sent a message,” she said. “It sent a message. And from there, they have taken action.” So, what does it mean for Bajinya? In simple terms, the charges against Bajinya focus on what British prosecutors allege was his role in directing or inciting crimes allegedly carried out by others. The prosecutors will have to present evidence to prove the specific allegations against him to the required criminal standard. The charges are not a finding of guilt. Bajinya remains entitled to a fair trial, where the evidence against him will be tested. The CPS said the allegations relate to April 1994 and that the suspect is alleged to have directed or incited acts of murder and genocide carried out by others. Why the case matters For Karekezi, the Bajinya case illustrates a broader principle in genocide prosecutions, responsibility can extend beyond the person who physically carries out a crime. People who plan, organise, direct or incite crimes can also face legal scrutiny, depending on the evidence and the applicable law. “The masterminds themselves don't kill physically,” Karekezi said. “They shape the opinion towards that end.” For Karekezi, the Bajinya case also reinforces the importance of understanding the different roles that can contribute to mass atrocities, and why examining those roles remains central to efforts to hold people accountable for the Genocide against the Tutsi.

News

Genocide: What do the charges against Dr Bajinya actually mean?