Transfer of cases from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to Domestic Jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article examines Rule 11 bis on the transfer of cases from the Rwanda Tribunal to domestic jurisdictions. It discusses the criteria for transfer under Rule 11 bis and reflects on reasons for the denial of all the Prosecutor’s requests for transfer except in the recent Uwinkindi’s Appeals Chamber decision. The article also examines how the Appeals Chamber resolved the ambiguity between the Death Penalty Law vis-à-vis Imprisonment in Isolation in Munyakazi, on the one hand, and ambiquity in Article 59 of the Rwanda Code of Criminal Procedure (“RCCP”) vis-à-vis Articles 13(10) and 25 of the Transfer Law, on the other hand, opening the way for the transfer of Uwinkindi to Rwanda. The article recognizes the high standards the Appeals Chamber has established for the transfer of cases to domestic jurisdictions and notes that only few States satisfactorily meet these requirements. In sum, the article welcomes the Uwinkindi decision and recognises a positive development in international criminal law and procedure. However, it also cautions that in practice the precedent may not necessarily translate into a flood of cases being transferred to Rwanda because many States will not be able to meet the Rule 11 bis high international standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".