This Note will examine decisions from two of the potential transfer cases, Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarukiga and Prosecutor v.YussufMunyakazi, and discuss their implications for the ICTR." Part I addresses the early history of the ICTR, including the initial criticisms leveled against it and its rocky relationship with Rwanda. It also examines the introduction of 11 bis and the changes made by Rwanda to come into compliance with the Rule's requirements. Part II discusses the referral decisions themselves. Finally, Part III assesses the different approaches taken by the two chambers within their respective denials. Through an examination of the reasons given in each decision, this Note will highlight the apparent confusion within the ICTR as to the level of trust which should be afforded to Rwanda. It ultimately argues that the ICTR must give Rwanda greater leeway within its 11 bis decisions, both to underscore the Tribunal's own legitimacy and assist with Rwanda's growth as a nation. It nevertheless recognizes that Rwanda faces certain, potentially insurmountable, problems in guaranteeing a fair trial, problems to which the ICTR cannot afford to turn a blind eye. Although the chambers hold out the possibility of a future transfer if their concerns are addressed, there is a very real possibility that Rwanda cannot fix the highlighted problems. In the face of such an impasse, one is ultimately left questioning whether the ICTR is promising the impossible.
Amelia S. Canter,
"For these Reasons, the Chamber: Denies the Prosecutor's Request for Referral": The False Hope of Rule 11 BIS,
32 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1614
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol32/iss5/6