Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKitur, Roy
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-10T07:43:14Z
dc.date.available2021-06-10T07:43:14Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11071/12014
dc.descriptionSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Laws Degree, Strathmore University Law Schoolen_US
dc.description.abstract" ... the crime of genocide is singled out for special condemnation and opprobrium. The crime is horrific in its scope; its perpetrators identify entire human groups for extinction. Those who devise and implement genocide seek to deprive humanity of the manifold richness its nationalities, races, ethnicities and religions provide. This is a crime against all of humankind, its harm being felt not only by the group targeted for destruction, but by all of humanity ... "2 The year 1948 brought with it the Convention on the Prevention on Punishment of the crime of Genocide (hereinafter the Convention), the first form of codification of law with regards to the crime of genocide.3 Subsequent statutes like the Rome Statute4, the ICTR statute5 and the ICTY statute 6 borrow the language put down in the Convention verbatim. Naturally, one would conclude that the considerations and conclusions of the drafters of the Genocide Convention were indeed the most universally accepted such that subsequent drafters adopted their language almost entirely.7en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherStrathmore Universityen_US
dc.subjectEthnic groupen_US
dc.subjectDubio Pro Reoen_US
dc.titleIntent to destroy an ethnic group: a failed promise of in Dubio Pro Reo?en_US
dc.typeLearning Objecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record