Problems of sentencing in International Criminal Law evaluation of the sentencing practice of the ICTR

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established by the UN in 1995. For nearly 20 years, it had to deal with numerous international crimes that took place in Rwanda in 1994. In 2015, the ICTR finally closed its doors. From a scientific point of view it is of outmost importance to analyse and critically reflect the work of the ICTR since this offers opportunities to benefit from achievements and failures of the international criminal law in action. The following article focuses on the sentencing practice of the ICTR. Besides the consistency of its verdicts it will be analysed whether the rule of law and fundamental procedural rights were ensured by the ICTR when imposing criminal sanctions. These two aspects perceived justice of the procedures leading to a sentence and perceived justice of the sanction itself represent important factors strongly influencing the perceived legitimacy and acceptance of international criminal law. Global acceptance of international criminal law can only be achieved if the criminal proceedings leading to a sanction as well as the verdicts of the international criminal tribunals are considered to be legitimate, lawful and just. Such a global acceptance is an essential prerequisite of the efficacy of international criminal law and as such an important part of the establishment of universal justice. The analysis of the sentencing practice of the ICTR presented her is based on a review of all of its verdicts. Some highly important shortcomings and problems regarding violations of fundamental legal and procedural guarantees embedded in sanctioning decisions of the ICTR could be identified. Building on the results of these assessments of the sanctioning decisions of the ICTR more general future perspectives for optimizing the practice of international criminal law with particular emphasis on sanctioning decisions are outlined.