Уголовное право

I’d like to start with the definition of genocide. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter “The Convention), adopted on 9 December 1948 by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Under the terms of the Convention, genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under inte
ational law which they [The Contracting Parties] undertake to prevent and to punish.
The same definition of genocide is given by the Rome Statute of the Inte
ational Criminal Court (Article 6), adopted in 1998 (hereinafter “The Statute”) . The Statute has established 4 main inte
ational crimes under the jurisdiction of the Inte
ational Criminal Court, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression (Article 5).
The core of genocide can be viewed as a wrongful act (or a series of such acts). A wrongful act is any act that will damage the rights of another, unless it is done in the exercise of another equal or superior right. Thus, genocide as a wrongful act means the acts of:
• direct killing and actions causing death;
• inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation;
• the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services (confiscation of ...

i) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
Moreover, no provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under inte
ational law.
As soon as the inte
ational wrongful acts of states and individuals lie under the jurisdiction of different judicial bodies (The Inte
ational Court of Justice for states and the Inte
ational Criminal Court for individuals), I believe, it is necessary to prove the guilt of an individual in the case of genocide again, even if the responsibility of a State in this case has been proved. In case of an individual trial, “The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy” , i.e. every case of individual responsibility is to be examined thoroughly and have a proper legal basis.
To sum up, a breach of an inte
ational obligation of a State is considered an inte
ational wrongful act and implies State responsibility for this act. Still, state responsibility cannot be “criminal”; it includes assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of the wrongful act and obligations to make full reparations for the injury. Criminal responsibility is taken by the individuals or groups of individuals, even if they act in the name of a State. States and individuals are in the jurisdiction of different inte
ational judicial bodies and thus we have to prove genocide again while trying to convict a person for the ...