The Law School Authority

Prosecutor v. Ruggiu Case Brief

Summary of Prosecutor v. Ruggiu

Δ, Ruggiu, Belgian.  Δ is a radio broadcaster in Rwanda.  never killed anyone or gave a direct order to kill, but broadcasted, “go to work” and “have a good time killing inyenzi (cockroaches).”  Ct accepts his plea of guilty for (1) incitement to genocide and (2) persecution as his crime against humanity.

(1)     Legal std for incitement to genocide

(a)     US: Direct and public incite to commit genocide

(b)    ICTR: Crime to directly and publicly commit genocide AND specific intent as the genocidaire (i.e. the person doing the killing).  Also, does not matter if it produces the result.

i)                     This would not work in the US under Brandenburg.  Needs to be directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to produce action.  UnderBrandenburg, if no result → just mere advocacy.

(2)     Is this conviction proper?

(a)     Possibly can be ok w/ result, even if not ok w/ the std

(b)    Clear = “direct” incitement to violence

i)                     Evid: “Go to work” = orders to kill; Cockroach = Tutsi; Show common knowledge of what these phrases meant

(c)     Present danger = is the conduct enough to show present danger?

i)                     Context—the existence of lawlessness, fact-specific.  History of ethnic strife, only two radio stns in the entire country + no tv; Also, easy to mistake this broadcast as the govt’s.

ii)                   Here, no free marketplace of ideas.  Thus, people are more susceptible to messages

jfdghjhthit45


Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner