Sudan: Gemeinsame Erklärung von 54 Organisationen fordert mehr Hilfe, Solidarität und Aufmerksamkeit für die Sudan-Krise

Leitungspersonen aus 55 Organisationen, darunter auch Genocide Alert, haben sich zusammengefunden, um eine gemeinsame Erklärung abzugeben, in der die Untätigkeit der Vereinten Nationen, insbesondere des UN-Sicherheitsrats, angesichts der zunehmenden Massenverbrechen im Sudan angeprangert wird. Unter den Unterstützern sind neben international und regional tätigen großen humanitären Nichtregierungsorganisationen, auch Spezialisten für die Verhinderung von Massenverbrechen, Menschenrechtsorganisationen und sudanesischen Organisationen.

Wir hoffen, dass wir die kollektive Kraft unserer Stimmen nutzen können, um die Aufmerksamkeit der Weltorganisation und insbesondere der UN-Generalversammlung auf Sudan zu lenken. Nachfolgend der Text im englischen Original.

Joint Statement Urging More Aid, Solidarity and Attention to Sudan Crisis

(New York, September 13, 2023) – We, the heads of over 50 human rights and humanitarian organizations are coming together to sound the alarm about Sudan, where a disaster is unfolding before our eyes. With fighting continuing across the country, brutal sexual violence rising, widespread deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and journalists and human rights defenders being silenced, the country is no longer at the precipice of mass atrocities – it has fallen over the edge.

Since April, when open hostilities broke out in Sudan’s capital, more than five million people have been forced to flee their homes and hundreds of thousands of others may soon be forced to join them. Many are now living in camps with limited access to humanitarian assistance, few educational opportunities for their children, and almost no psychosocial support to help them cope with their traumatic experiences.

Inside Sudan, over 20 million people, 42 percent of Sudan’s population, now face acute food insecurity and 6 million are just a step away from famine. At least 498 children have died from hunger. Clinics and doctors have come under fire throughout the country, putting 80 percent of the country’s major hospitals out of service. 

Hate speech, especially language urging the targeting of communities based on the color of their skin, is always alarming. But with an increasingly fractured social fabric, some fighters targeting civilians based on their ethnicity, and accounts from sexual violence survivors in Darfur who heard their rapists tell them that we hope you bear “our” babies – we fear the worst.  

Twenty years after the horrors of Darfur shocked our conscience, we are failing to meet the moment. Thus far, mediation efforts have not deterred Sudan’s warring parties from continuing to commit egregious abuses. We urge a more unified approach that better represents the voices and perspectives of Sudan’s civilians, including women, youth, and representatives from the historically marginalized “periphery.”

We are committed to working together to urge more aid for, more solidarity with, and greater attention to the needs of Sudan’s civilians. The United Nations humanitarian appeal remains woefully underfunded – at about 25 percent of what is needed – and Sudan’s warring parties continue to undermine efforts to deliver aid safely. Donors should step up humanitarian funding, both for local and international organizations who are providing indispensable assistance in Sudan and neighboring countries.

The costs of inaction are mounting. The UN Security Council should move from talk to action and begin negotiations to pass a resolution that challenges the climate of impunity, reiterates that international law requires providing safe, unhindered humanitarian access, and redirects international efforts to better protect Sudan’s most vulnerable. The consequences of not acting are too grave to imagine.

Signatories (listed alphabetically)

Act for Sudan, Eric Cohen, Co-Founder

African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies, Mossaad Mohamed Ali, Executive Director

Africans for the Horn of Africa, Stella Ndirangu, Coordinator

Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard, Secretary General

Association of Sudanese-American Professors in America (ASAPA), Beckry Abdel-Magid, Secretary

Atrocities Watch, Dismas Nkunda, CEO

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Bahey El Din Hassan, Director

Carter Center, Paige Alexander, CEO

Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Udo Jude Ilo, Executive Director

Center for Peace Building and Democracy in Liberia (CEPEBUD-Liberia), Florence N. Flomo, Executive Director

Committee to Protect Journalists, Jodie Ginsberg, President

Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, Carol Cohn, Director

Darfur Diaspora Association Group in the United Kingdom, Abdallah Idriss, Director

Darfur Women Action Group, Niemat Ahmadi, Founder and President

DefendDefenders, Hassan Shire, Executive Director

EG Justice, Tutu Alicante, Executive Director

Freedom House, Michael J. Abramowitz, President

Genocide Alert, Gregor Hofmann, Chairman

George W. Bush Institute, David Kramer, Executive Director

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Savita Pawnday, Executive Director

Global Survivors Fund, Dennis Mukwege, President

GOAL, Siobhán Walsh, CEO

HIAS, Mark Hetfield, President & CEO

HUDO Centre, Bushra Gamar, Executive Director

Human Rights Watch, Tirana Hassan, Executive Director

iACT, Sara-Christine Dallain, Executive Director

Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention at Binghamton University, Kerry Whigham, Co-Director

InterAction, Anne Lynam Goddard, Interim President and CEO

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Eleonore Morel, CEO

International Rescue Committee, David Miliband, President & CEO

Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, Felice Gaer, Director

Legal Action Worldwide, Antonia Mulvey, Founder and Executive Director

MADRE, Yifat Susskind, Executive Director

Mercy Corps, Tjada D’Oyen McKenna, Chief Executive Officer

Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University, Kyle Matthews, Executive Director

Never Again Coalition, Lauren Fortgang, Director

No Business with Genocide, Simon Billenness, Director

Nobel Women’s Initiative, Maria Butler, Executive Director

Nonviolent Peaceforce, Tiffany Easthom, Executive Director

Norwegian Refugee Council, Jan Egeland, Secretary General

Open Society Foundations, Mark Malloch-Brown, President

OutRight International, Maria Sjödin, Executive Director

Physicians for Human Rights, Saman Zia-Zarifi, Executive Director

Plan International, Stephen Omollo, CEO

Project Expedite Justice, Cynthia Tai, Executive Director

Public International Law & Policy Group, Paul R. Williams, President

Refugees International, Jeremy Konyndyk, President

Regional Centre for Training and Development of Civil Society, Mutaal Girshab, Director General

Society for Threatened Peoples, Roman Kühn, Director

Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker, Suliman Baldo, Executive Director

Sudan Unlimited, Esther Sprague, Founder and Director

Sudanese American Public Affairs Association, Fareed Zein, Board Chairman

The Sentry, John Prendergast, Co-Founder

Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC), Aymen Tabir, Executive Director

US-Educated Sudanese Association (USESA), Samah Salman, President

Vital Voices, Alyse Nelson, President & CEO

World Federalist Movement Canada, Alexandre MacIsaac, Executive Director

World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy (WFM/IGP), Amy Oloo, Consulting Executive Director

Die Prävention von Massenverbrechen gehört in den Koalitionsvertrag

Eine neue Regierungskoalition in Berlin bietet die Chance, bisheriges außenpolitisches Handeln zu überdenken. Allzu oft hat Deutschland angesichts von Massenverbrechen nur langsam reagiert, statt diese frühzeitig zu verhindern bzw. kritische Situationen mit einem hohen Risiko für das Auftreten von Massenverbrechen aktiv zu entschärfen. Im Ergebnis der Sondierungsgespräche von SPD, Grünen und FDP heben sie hervor, dass sich Deutschland seiner globalen Verantwortung stellt und dass sie die Außen-, Sicherheits- und Entwicklungspolitik wertebasiert aufstellen wollen. Wir nehmen diese Ankündigung beim Wort und wenden uns mit konkreten Vorschlägen an die zukünftige Koalition. 

Prävention von Massenverbrechen ist deutsche Staatsraison 

Vor 72 Jahren wurde die UN-Völkermordkonvention beschlossen. Dennoch kommt es bis heute immer wieder zu Völkermorden und anderen Massenverbrechen. Der Versuch des sogenannten Islamischen Staates, die Jesid*innen im Irak auszulöschen, die Ermordung und Vertreibung der Rohingya durch das Militär in Myanmar und die Unterdrückung und Ausbeutung der muslimischen Minderheit der Uighur*innen in China sind nur die jüngsten Beispiele für solch systematische identitätsbasierte Gewalt. In vielen Konflikten kam es in den letzten Jahren zu schweren Kriegsverbrechen, wie aktuell etwa in Äthiopien. Autoritäre Regime und extremistische Ideologien weltweit schrecken in ihrer Repression Andersdenkender nicht zurück vor schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen oder gar Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit.  

Das Verhindern von Massenverbrechen, d.h. von Völkermorden, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und systematischen Kriegsverbrechen, bleibt eine moralische und historische Verantwortung Deutschlands. Auch im Hinblick auf die katastrophalen wirtschafts- und sicherheitspolitischen Auswirkungen ist die Prävention solcher Verbrechen im Interesse der Bundesrepublik. Dies hat die Bundesregierung im Juni 2017 mit den Leitlinien zur Krisenprävention bekräftigt: “das Verhindern von Völkermord und schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen und das Eintreten für bedrohte Minderheiten sowie für die Opfer von Unterdrückung und Verfolgung gehören zur deutschen Staatsraison.” 

Integration der Prävention von Massenverbrechen in eine nationale Sicherheitsstrategie 

Es gilt nun, dies auch praktisch umzusetzen. Im Sondierungsergebnis kündigen SPD, Grüne und FDP an, eine nationale Sicherheitsstrategie vorzulegen. Diese muss die Prävention von Massenverbrechen klar miteinschließen. Denn um solche Gräueltaten effektiver zu verhindern, ist eine außenpolitische Schwerpunktsetzung, klare Positionierung und langfristige Konzeptentwicklung notwendig. Bislang findet sich in der deutschen Außenpolitik ein blinder Fleck bei der frühzeitigen Erkennung und der gezielten Prävention von Massenverbrechen.  

Die Bundesrepublik muss ihr Bekenntnis zur internationalen Schutzverantwortung, zur Völkerstrafgerichtsbarkeit sowie zur Arbeit des internationalen Strafgerichtshofs bekräftigen. Dies sollte im Koalitionsvertrag mit Hinweis auf folgende konkrete Schritte untermauert werden: 

  • Die nächste Bundesregierung sollte prüfen, über welche Kapazitäten die Bundesrepublik für die Prävention von Massenverbrechen verfügt, vor welchen Herausforderungen sie steht und wie das Risiko für solche Verbrechen künftig früher erkannt und schneller gehandelt werden kann. Genocide Alert hat hierzu wiederholt Vorschläge unterbreitet und bereits 2012 zusammen mit Human Rights Watch Germany und der Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker vorgeschlagen, einen Bestandsbericht zur Prävention von Massenverbrechen zu erarbeiten. 
  • Auf dieser Grundlage muss die neue Bundesregierung eine systematische Strategie zur Prävention von Massenverbrechen entwickeln und auch umsetzen. Diese muss ressortübergreifend ausgerichtet sein und muss neben AA und dem BMZ auch das BMVg, BMWi, BMI, BMF und BMJV sowie das Kanzleramt einbeziehen. Innerhalb der bestehenden Strukturen muss eine sogenannte Atrocity Prevention Lens integriert werden. 
  • Es gilt anzuerkennen, dass (zivile) Krisenprävention und Prävention von Massenverbrechen mit einander zusammen hängen. Letztere sind jedoch als eigenständige Formen politischer Gewalt zu begreifen, die in ihren unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen spezifisch analysiert und adressiert werden müssen. Um frühzeitiger präventiv aktiv werden zu können, müssen sich die Ressorts intensiver austauschen über Informationen zu Risikoindikatoren für Massenverbrechen, die etwa der Frühwarn-Analyserahmen des UN-Büros für Völkermordprävention und R2P benennt.  
  • Es muss auch analysiert werden, an welchen Stellen Fachexpertise zur Prävention von Massenverbrechen fehlt. Diese sollte gezielt durch Fortbildungen und Neueinstellungen ausgebaut werden.  

Der Bundestag-Unterausschuss “Zivile Krisenprävention, Konfliktbearbeitung und vernetztes Handeln” hat sich dieser Themen bislang einmal angenommen, am 14. Januar 2019, in einem öffentlichen Fachgespräch zur Prävention von Massenverbrechen angenommen. Damals diskutierten die Abgeordneten mit dem UN-Untergeneralsekretär Adama Dieng, damals Sonderberater des UN-Generalsekretärs für die Prävention von Völkermord, sowie dem Geschäftsführer von Genocide Alert, Jens Stappenbeck. In der neuen Legislaturperiode gilt es daran anzuknüpfen. 

Prävention von Massenverbrechen als feste Größe deutscher Außenpolitik verankern 

Das frühzeitige Verhindern von Massenverbrechen ist kein politisches Randthema. Massenverbrechen führen jedes Jahr zu massivem Leid und immensen Fluchtbewegungen. Wir hoffen auf den Einsatz der neuen Regierungskoalition dafür, dass die Prävention dieser schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen nicht nur konzeptionell als Teil der deutschen Staatsräson verstanden, sondern auch praktisch in der Außenpolitik und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit umgesetzt wird.  

Die Koalitionsverhandlungen bieten die Möglichkeit, hier wichtige Weichenstellungen vorzunehmen. Wir fordern alle Verhandelnden mit Nachdruck auf: Nutzen Sie diese Chance.  


Eine detailliertere Diskussion unserer Vorschläge ist hier zu finden:  

„Denying is becoming Part of a Folklore“ – Interview with Srebrenica-Survivor and author Nedžad Avdić

Emma Neuber, Estella Müller & Miriam Schirmer

Doku im rbb: Krieg vor Gericht © Bild: rbb/LOOKSfilm (S2+), honorarfrei, Verwendung in engem redaktionellem Zusammenhang mit der Sendung

Dieses englischsprachige Interview ist Teil einer Interviewreihe und Filmbesprechung von Genocide Alert e.V. zur zweiteiligen Dokumentarreihe „Krieg vor Gericht“, die im Sommer 2021 in der ARD ausgestrahlt wurde. Die Dokumentation gibt detaillierten Einblick in die juristische Aufarbeitung der während der Jugoslawienkriege von 1991 bis 2001 verübten Massenverbrechen. Dabei werden einerseits historische Ereignisse rund um das Jugoslawientribunal detailgenau rekonstruiert. Andererseits geben Berichte von Zeitzeug:innen einen persönlichen Einblick in die geschehenen Massenverbrechen und den Strafprozess. Im nachfolgenden Interview schildert der Überlebende des Völkermordes in Srebrenica Nedžad Avdić was ihn antreibt und wie er auf die bisherige Aufarbeitung der damaligen Massenverbrechen blickt.


„Denying is becoming Part of a Folklore“ – Interview with Srebrenica-Survivor and author Nedžad Avdić

Nedžad Avdić was born in 1978 in a village near Srebrenica into a family of Bosniaks. When he was only 17 years old, he and his male relatives were taken to a killing field during the genocide in Srebrenica. Nedžad was shot three times by Serb soldiers. However, with the help of another survivor he managed to escape and survived the genocide. When the ICTY was established in 1993 he decided to testify as a witness in two cases. Today, Nedžad lives in Potočari, six kilometres away from Srebenica, as one of the few survivors who returned to Srebrenica. Recently, Nedžad not only participated in the documentary series “Krieg vor Gericht – Die Jugoslawien-Prozesse”, but also published the book “The Hague Witness”, in which he tells his story.

Genocide Alert: You do a lot of interviews and talk about your personal experiences publicly, for example in the documentary series on the ICTY. What is your motivation for that? What drives you?

Nedžad Avdić: First of all, the most important motive is the truth. However, to fully understand this, you need to understand the circumstances in Bosnia and the region and know some crucial facts. I never really escaped from the hell of Srebrenica, I did not come from hell to some kind of paradise somewhere in Bosnia where I could keep living peacefully. First, I fought for my life, then I fought for justice as a witness at the ICTY and the Bosnian court as well. And today I fight against those who deny the truth and the international judgements, and all the judgements related to the genocide and the war crimes here in Bosnia.

All this time, since July 1995, what was committed in Srebrenica has been brutally denied. Even some foreign media immediately after the war went with sarcastic headlines, such as “Genocide without corpses?”, alluding to the non-existence of mass graves.

Today, 26 years later, despite very precise evidence and despite numerous verdicts, the denial continues even more aggressively. We are dealing with denial, revisionism, reduction and minimization of crimes, justification of crimes, and glorification of crimes and war criminals. In fact, we have a development of a culture of denial. And denying is becoming part of a folklore here in Bosnia, it is a trend.

All these things drive me. So, do we need a stronger motivation than this? Can we allow lies, mythomania, and propaganda to prevail over the truth? That is my answer to that question.

Genocide Alert: From August 2021 on, the denial of the genocide in Bosnia is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. What do you think about this legislation, especially as you told us that denial is a trend in Bosnia right now?

NA: Much time ago, we needed that. Maybe now it is too late, but from my point of view it is better now than never. But some things cannot be solved by law. The main problem, in my opinion, lies in the Serbian population and also here in Bosnia, especially with the people who deny the genocide and the international judgments. They have a lot of support in Serbia and that is the main problem, because many war criminals – during the war, after the war, and today – find shelter and protection in Serbia or in Serbian entities[1] here in Bosnia. They are protected by official Serbian politics, by Serbian media and institutions. And that is the problem because Serb politicians were never confronted with the bloody past. And that law can maybe help, but they have to be confronted in their society. I hope that catharsis will come one day but for now, nothing happened.

Genocide Alert: How do you perceive the situation in the country today? To what extent do you still feel the effects of the war and the genocide in the society today?

Nedžad Avdić: I returned to Srebrenica around 15 years ago, in 2007. I feel the consequences of the war everywhere, not only physically but in every sense. In fact, the genocide has never stopped. A small community of returnees still struggles against elimination from all segments of life. Of course, the situation is incomparably better than 20 years ago, but we have a frozen conflict. And the denial of the genocide and the missing confrontation cause problems in everyday life, specifically here in Srebrenica, in eastern Bosnia where I live now. We have problems, like the denial of verdicts, the complete deprivation of the right to learn the Bosnian language in schools for our children, in fact the denial of our identity, the dehumanization of Bosniaks in public speech, on a daily basis in the media. For example, very rarely the term “Bosniaks” is being used. The terms “Muslims”, “Muslim soldiers”, “Muslim children”, etc. are preferred instead – but that is not fair and not correct. In that way they want to humiliate us and show us as dirty Muslims. And in fact, such vocabulary was used during the war and such vocabulary brought us the genocide and prepared the Serb population for the extermination of their neighbours.

Genocide Alert: Perpetrator voices are featured next to those of survivors in the documentary you took part in. How important do you think is it to include both perspectives in processes of dealing with the genocide?

Nedžad Avdić: The perpetrator who is featured in the documentary was on the Bosnian side and seemingly he talks about it openly.

In my experience, most of the Serb perpetrators just deny everything that they’ve committed. They do not regret what they did and they do not talk about it except when they deny it. The reason for that is that they find refuge and protection in Serbia and the Republika Srpska. They are protected by Serbian official policy, by Serbian media and institutions etc.

But I have to be honest: I do not like to be together with the perpetrators, the deniers, even in the film. But if someone wants to bring both perspectives together and thinks it is a good idea to have perpetrators and survivors in a documentary, I am happy to take part. But, I will always say that the perpetrators showed what they were able to show when they were committing crimes, and I do not see what they could offer more. We are talking about thousands of destroyed human lives and destinies, and we cannot put perpetrators and survivors on the same level. We did not fight gun to gun, people who were killed with me, were unarmed, defenceless and innocent civilians. Because of that, I do not like to be represented on the same level.

Genocide Alert: Do you feel that in Bosnia today adequate space is given to voices of survivors and the families of victims?

Nedžad Avdić: Definitely not enough space is given to the victims. We were not given any space voluntarily, because someone thought we should be given a platform to talk about our suffering. We had to fight for that space ourselves. We fought for everything, and we still fight.

As for the perpetrators of crimes, in Bosnia, or more specifically in Srebrenica, no space exists in which war criminals were ever given the chance to express any remorse. Also, since Serb officials deny the genocide, they have never actively claimed any such space to confront and process the past.

Genocide Alert: To what extent was the ICTY able to contribute to the reappraisal of the genocide and mass atrocities committed and the reconciliation process in general? In your opinion, what were the most significant outcomes and most important shortcomings of the ICTY?

Nedžad Avdić: In fact, we can ask ourselves the question: What would the situation in Bosnia be like today if we did not have the ICTY? We can only guess. I believe it would be incomparably worse, that’s for sure. Imagine having all those major criminals at large today? I can’t imagine that and I don’t want to imagine that. We, the rare witnesses, I don’t know if we would be alive in such circumstances. If we didn’t have the ICTY, today the war criminals would probably walk around as respectable citizens. That’s the good side of the tribunal.

Of course, the ICTY has many shortcomings: The first is that justice came too late, and many victims and survivors did not receive it. If we had had one quick trial, like in Nuremberg, today the situation in the country would be completely different. I must admit that my expectations were much greater. But as I said, many war criminals were sent to the ICTY very late. Why did that happen? It happened because they found shelter in Serbia. And Serbia waited until the last moment to send them to the ICTY. And that is a huge problem because the international community didn’t put huge pressure on Serbia to send them to the ICTY immediately after the war.

Genocide Alert: You also decided to engage personally in the work of the ICTY by testifying before court. Why did you decide to testify before the court? How was this experience for you?

Nedžad Avdić: First of all, after such a tragedy, the ICTY was the only hope at the time and the only light for us survivors. What I could do, as a survivor, was to testify how such a crime could be represented to the tribunal and later to a broader public.

In the end, it was my moral obligation and the only thing I could do for my killed father, my killed uncles, for my schoolmates, for my friends, for my relatives and neighbours.

My testimonies were difficult, very painful and exhausting because I had to go through the horror again.

For the first time I was faced with so many people who were listening about the horror in details from the first hand. It was pretty stressful for me when I found myself there in the courtroom in the first case for Srebrenica. It was the case against General Radislav Krstić who was convicted for genocide and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. It was very stressful for me to be in the courtroom because it was the first time for me to talk about what had happened. And so many prosecutors, so many personnel, and the jury, and the lawyers who defended the war criminal were there. It was very difficult for me to talk about that, I was experiencing real horror again. And I remember that I was testifying there, crying all the time. And when they asked me after the trial to come again in the next case, I said: “It is my first and my last case to come to the tribunal.” But later when they called me again I accepted again because, as I said, it was my obligation and the only thing I could do.

Genocide Alert: Some believe that the ICTY has led to justice. In your personal opinion, did it do so?

Nedžad Avdić (Photy by Nedžad Avdić)
Nedžad Avdić (Photy by Nedžad Avdić)

Nedžad Avdić: The ICTY has done part of the job. We have to say that the court was quite objective and did not take sides, but as a survivor I can tell you that justice was at best partially served. Individuals from the top were convicted, but the regime that was established on those crimes still exists, devastation and ethnic cleansing remained, results of the war are still visible everywhere. Srebrenica today is in the hands of those who deny genocide and glorify war criminals. For example, our local mayor denies the genocide. It is important to ask ourselves if such people could have come to power if they had not committed the genocide. The mayor of Srebrenica is a perfect example: after the genocide, probably because of the genocide, he had much more possibilities to take power. Is that justice?

But, I want to express one thing: So, even though great injustice was inflicted, genocide was committed, we as an ethnic group were completely expelled, when all that is taken into account, I can say that the judgments are important in the end, because they bring us the closest to the truth. And just because of that I can say that I feel a certain relief, a certain amount of satisfaction. Because in that way, the ICTY discovered the truth and presented it to public – that is important for me. For me, it doesn’t mean much that some war criminals are in prison, because their imprisonment cannot return my father, my uncles, my relatives. For me the truth is more important than anything else.

Genocide Alert: From the perspective of a survivor: What are the most important learnings for future genocide tribunals? Are there any?

Nedžad Avdić: In Srebrenica and after that when I was loaded on a truck I could only see brutality and bestiality. But following the work of the court, I could see a lot of evidence, a lot of documents, a criminal structure, joint criminal ventures, strategical goals which actually were genocidal intentions. I couldn’t know such things here in Srebrenica, as seventeen-year-old boys we were in total isolation. I found out much about the war, destruction and the enormous scale of the crime from the trials. And maybe the most important thing that I learned from the ICTY and all that, but from the terrain as well: I realized that all conventions were just plain definitions on paper. In reality, they meant nothing. Each one of them was violated. I realized in practice, on the terrain and during the many trials, that we had and have many conventions, but they are not respected at all.

We, as human beings, especially the politicians, should react much faster and much earlier. Before the possibility of a genocide arises. Judgements and tribunals are only reactions that are always too late. If we had stopped the war and saved only one live, it would have been much better than any tribunal later established.


[1] Republika Srpska


GA Interviewreihe „Krieg vor Gericht“

Anlässlich der Veröffentlichung der Dokumentarreihe hat Genocide Alert e.V. zwei Interviews mit Projektbeteiligten geführt: Im ersten Interview mit Genocide Alert gibt Lucio Mollica, der der Regisseur von „Krieg vor Gericht“, einen Einblick in die Entstehung und Hintergründe der Dokumentarreihe.


Bildrechte:

RUNDFUNK BERLIN-BRANDENBURG
Krieg vor Gericht – Die Jugoslawien-Prozesse
Das Grauen des Balkankrieges: belagerte Städte, vertriebene Familien, über 130.000 Tote. Der Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien sollte die Kriegsverbrechen ahnden. Nie zuvor hat ein internationales Gericht Kriegsverbrecher aller Seiten verfolgt – darunter Mladić, Karadžić und Milošević. Der Film erzählt von Opfern, Tätern und Anklägern. – Der ehemalige bosnisch-serbische Politiker Radovan Karadžić vor Gericht am 24. März 2016 in Den Haag.

Titelbild: © Nedžad Avdić

Beitragsbild: © rbb/LOOKSfilm, honorarfrei – Verwendung gemäß der AGB im engen inhaltlichen, redaktionellen Zusammenhang mit genannter rbb-Sendung bei Nennung „Bild: rbb/LOOKSfilm“ (S2+). rbb Presse & Information, Masurenallee 8-14, 14057 Berlin, Tel: 030/97 99 3-12118, pressefoto@rbb-online.de

Beitragsbild: © Nedžad Avdić

Dossier Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit – Ad-hoc Tribunale im Vergleich

Rechtswidrig begangene Taten haben eine Bestrafung zu Folge, wenn alle übrigen Voraussetzungen einer strafbaren Handlung gegeben sind. Diese Logik wohnt seit jeher allen Rechtssystemen inne und ist umfassend akzeptiert. Die schwersten Verbrechen, die die Menschheit kennt, namentlich Völkermord, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Kriegsverbrechen, werden jedoch oft nur unzureichend verfolgt. Viele Verantwortliche für solche Massenverbrechen kommen straffrei davon.

Trotz allem gibt es aber auch positive Entwicklungen. Seit Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges wurden immer wieder Kriegsverbrecher*innen und Völkermörder*innen einer rechtmäßigen Bestrafung zugeführt. Vor rund 20 Jahren wurde dann der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) geschaffen. Er wird als die bislang größte Errungenschaft der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft auf dem Gebiet des Völkerstrafrechts gesehen.

Doch bereits vor dem IStGH gab es verschiedene Ad-Hoc Gerichtshöfe und Kriegsverbrechertribunale. Diese haben entscheidend zur Entwicklung des Völkerstrafrechts beigetragen, indem sie Verantwortliche für Kriegsverbrechen und Völkermorde einer rechtmäßigen Bestrafung zugeführt haben. Genocide Alert zeichnet in einem neuen Dossier diesen Prozess hin zur Herausbildung einer individuellen Strafbarkeit für schwerste Verbrechen nach. Hierfür werden die Tribunale anhand eines Analyserasters verglichen.

Das Dossier bietet einen Überblick über die wichtigsten Stationen hin zu einer individuellen Strafbarkeit vor dem Völkerrecht für schwerste Verbrechen.

» Weiter zur Projektseite Entwicklung der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit

Internationaler Tag der Gerechtigkeit: Without Justice and Recognition the Genocide by ISIS Continues

Anlässlich des heutigen Internationalen Tages für Gerechtigkeit, auch bekannt als International Justice Day, ruft Genocide Alert gemeinsam mit 36 weiteren Organisationen zur Anerkennung, Aufarbeitung und Bestrafung des vom sogenannten Islamischen Staat an den Jesiden durchgeführten Völkermordes sowie zur Unterstützung von JesidInnen auf. Der International Justice Day markiert den Jahrestag der Annahme des Römischen Statuts am 17. Juli 1998. Das Statut bildet die vertragliche Grundlage des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (IStGH), dessen Zuständigkeit Völkermord, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen der Aggression umfasst. Der IStGH ist komplementär zu nationalem Recht. Nur wenn das nationale Recht eines Staates nicht greift, wird ein Fall an den Den Haager Gerichtshof überstellt.

Die gemeinsame Erlärung (auch als PDF auf Englisch und Arabisch verfügbar):

 

Without Justice and Recognition the Genocide by ISIS Continues

Joint NGO Statement to Commemorate International Justice Day, 17 July 2020

Following its capture of Mosul on 10 June 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) began to target northern Iraq’s ethno-religious minorities, as well as members of the Sunni community who stood in opposition or were perceived to be insufficiently supportive of ISIS and its ideology. In August 2014 ISIS swept across Sinjar and the Nineveh Plains, attacking indigenous Yazidis, Christians (including ethnic Assyrians), Turkmen and other ethno-religious minorities. ISIS went to considerable lengths to eliminate the Yazidi people, killing the men and adolescent boys, and abducting thousands of women and children. Young boys were indoctrinated and forced to fight for ISIS, while women and girls as young as nine were enslaved and sold as chattel to ISIS fighters.

Those held captive suffered sustained sexual violence under an organized system of sexual enslavement, were beaten, and forced to labour. ISIS had long been explicit about its intention to wipe out the Yazidi community, which it reviled as infidels and idol-worshippers. This intent, visible in the violations and public utterances of ISIS, is also evident in the group’s systematic destruction of Yazidi religious and cultural heritage sites. As determined by a United Nations Commission of Inquiry, ISIS committed genocide in its multi-faceted attacks on the Yazidis, whose suffering is ongoing.

Communal cohesion has been significantly undermined, and there is a considerable risk that cultural heritage and religious traditions may disappear forever. Countless temples, churches, and holy sites have been destroyed, tens of thousands of civilians remain in squalid IDP camps across northern Iraq, too fearful to return to their ancestral lands. Nearly 3,000 women and children remain missing, with many believed to be in captivity. Recent attacks by residual elements of ISIS highlight the grave threat faced by civilians in Iraq today.

It is the legal and moral responsibility of all governments to act in accordance with the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The new Iraqi Government and the international community must work together to bring ISIS to justice. This includes supporting and working closely with UNITAD in fulfilling its mandate to investigate the atrocities and empowering survivor groups such as the Yazidi Survivor Network. In addition, all governments should undertake the necessary legal analysis to recognize the genocide and prosecute their citizens who joined ISIS and perpetrated atrocity crimes in Iraq and Syria. The prosecution of perpetrators – as in the trial of Taha A.J. in Frankfurt, Germany – and the formal recognition of the genocide are key measures in preventing future atrocity crimes and in countering violent extremism.

International Justice Day should serve as a warning to all perpetrators that they will face their time in court and be brought to justice for their heinous crimes. ISIS cannot be considered a defeated enemy whilst it continues to escape justice. Now is the time to put an end to impunity.

List of signatories:

  1. Air Bridge Iraq – Luftbrücke Irak (Germany)
  2. Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (Australia)
  3. Assyrian Policy Institute (United States of America)
  4. Center for Justice and Accountability (United States of America)
  5. Central Council of Yazidi in Germany – Zentralrats der Êzîden in Deutschland (Germany)
  6. Coalition for Genocide Response (United Kingdom)
  7. Défense Sans Frontière Avocats Solidaires (France)
  8. European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (United Kingdom)
  9. Eyzidi Organization for Documentation (Iraq)
  10. Families of the Missing (United States of America)
  11. Free Yezidi Foundation (Iraq/The Netherlands)
  12. Genocide Alert (Germany)
  13. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect  (United States)
  14. HAWAR.help (Germany)
  15. Hope Makers Organization for Woman (Iraq)
  16. International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue (France)
  17. Jiyan Foundation for Human Rights (Iraq)
  18. Minority Rights Group International (United Kingdom)
  19. Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (Canada)
  20. Nadia’s Initiative (Iraq/United States of America)
  21. Nineveh Center for Minority Rights (Iraq)
  22. Nuhanovic Foundation (The Netherlands)
  23. Project Abraham (Canada)
  24. Rainbow Organization for Child Protection (Iraq)
  25. Road to Peace (United Kingdom)
  26. Sanabl Al Mostakbal (Iraq)
  27. Society for Threatened Peoples – Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker-International (Germany)
  28. Shlomo Organization for Documentation (Iraq)
  29. STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities (United States of America)
  30. Sunrise Organization for Civil Society Development (Iraq)
  31. Trauma Treatment International (United Kingdom)
  32. Women’s Refugee Commission (United States of America)
  33. Voice Of Ezidis (France)
  34. Yazda (Iraq/United States of America)
  35. Yazidi Legal Network (The Netherlands)
  36. YES- Yezidi Emergency Support (UK)
  37. Youth Bridge Development Organization (Iraq)

 

Syrische Staatsfolter vor deutschen Gerichten – das Weltrechtsprinzip und seine Bedeutung für die Verfolgung schwerster Verbrechen

In zwei kürzlich eröffneten Gerichtsverfahren müssen sich zwei Syrer wegen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und ein Iraker wegen Völkermordes verantworten – und das vor deutschen Gerichten in Frankfurt und in Koblenz. Erstmals weltweit werden damit die Gräueltaten des Assad-Regimes und der Völkermord an den Jesiden vor Gericht verhandelt. Wie ist das möglich? Das Weltrechtsprinzip gibt die Antwort: Ihm zufolge hat jeder Staat das Recht, schwerste Verbrechen wie Völkermord, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Kriegsverbrechen zu verfolgen.
Weiterlesen

Von Nürnberg bis Den Haag – Völkerstrafgerichtsbarkeit im Wandel der Zeit

Mai 16, 2020 / von Paul Stewens Verbrechen werden je nach Schwere bestraft, so ist der Gang der Dinge im Rechtsstaat. Allerdings herrschte im Laufe der Geschichte in den meisten Fällen Straffreiheit für die schwersten aller Verbrechen: Völkermord, Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. Seit dem 20. Jahrhundert werden jedoch mehr und mehr Täter und Täterinnen […]

Rohingya and the ICC – The Rights of the Rohingya?

The “preliminary probe” announced by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to the exodus of the Rohingya opens the door to further international legal inquiry into the accusations of systemic ethnic violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority. But the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is facing serious challenges in fulfilling the raised expectations.

Article by Robert Menzies

Weiterlesen

Koalitionsvertrag offenbart Handlungsbedarf bei der Prävention von Massenverbrechen

Die neue Bundesregierung wurde am 14. März vereidigt. Als Grundlage der zukünftigen Regierungsgeschäfte enthält der Koalitionsvertrag in Bezug auf die Schutzverantwortung einige sehr begrüßenswerte Forderungen, etwa nach einer restriktiveren Rüstungsexportpolitik. In vielen Punkten geht er jedoch nicht weit genug.
Weiterlesen

Logo des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs

Ist der Internationale Strafgerichtshof unbrauchbar?

Kritiker werfen dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) vor, dieser sei als Gerichtshof unbrauchbar, um begangene Massenverbrechen gerecht und effektiv zu bestrafen und damit nicht in der Lage zur Wahrung des Weltfriedens beizutragen. Afrikanische Staaten werfen ihm Selektivität und mangelnde Glaubwürdigkeit vor, angesichts der starken Konzentration auf Geschehnisse in Afrika. Israel bezeichnet den IStGH sogar als terrorismusfördernd und fordert im Zusammenhang mit der Aufnahme von Vorermittlungen zu Massenverbrechen in Palästina zum Boykott des IStGH auf. Dabei könnten die Vorermittlungen in Israel auch als Chance gesehen werden, auf Kriegsverbrechen seitens der Hamas aufmerksam zu machen. Häufig wird bei aller Kritik jedoch das eigentliche Problem des IStGH ignoriert: die Reformbedürftigkeit des durch das Veto-System nicht selten blockierten Sicherheitsrates der UN, der damit auch die Arbeit des IStGHs beeinträchtigt. Weiterlesen