## Facts

- Three media and political figures were prosecuted for using mass media to encourage ethnic violence during the 1994 Rwanda genocide: Ferdinand Nahimana (linked to RTLM radio), Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza (RTLM leadership and political role), and Hassan Ngeze (publisher of *Kangura*).
- The Trial Chamber convicted all three of multiple crimes, including direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity (extermination and persecution), based on broadcasts and publications disseminating anti-Tutsi propaganda and calls to violence.
- The accused appealed on numerous grounds, including legal and factual errors, unfair-trial claims, misapplication of incitement and superior responsibility standards, and sentencing.
- Freedom-of-expression organizations submitted an amicus brief arguing the Trial Chamber risked conflating protected (though hateful) expression with criminal incitement.
- The Appeals Chamber reviewed challenges to the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality, and rejected claims that political pressure or bias invalidated the proceedings.
- The Appeals Chamber examined whether portions of the charged expression fell outside the Tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction beginning January 1, 1994, and, for some modes of liability, whether pre–April 6, 1994 conduct could support specific convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether the legal standard for direct and public incitement to commit genocide was applied too broadly, improperly capturing hate speech lacking a direct call to genocidal violence.
2. Whether certain convictions had to be set aside because the underlying conduct fell outside the Tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction.
3. Whether the appellants’ criminal responsibility was correctly characterized, including liability for speech acts and superior responsibility for failing to prevent or punish subordinates.
4. Whether alleged political influence or judicial bias denied the accused an independent, impartial, and fair trial.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber rejected challenges to the independence and impartiality of the Tribunal and proceeded to decide the merits.
- The Appeals Chamber partially affirmed and partially reversed the Trial Judgment, setting aside some convictions where conduct was time-barred or where the refined legal thresholds were not met.
- The Appeals Chamber clarified and narrowed the distinction between criminal incitement and hateful expression, requiring a contextual showing that the speech was a direct call to commit genocide and was made publicly with genocidal intent.
- The Appeals Chamber affirmed key convictions for direct and public incitement to commit genocide for Nahimana and Ngeze based on specific 1994 broadcasts and publications.
- The Appeals Chamber upheld aspects of superior responsibility in the media context, including Nahimana’s liability for failing to prevent or punish persecutory broadcasts by employees within his effective authority.
- Sentences were reduced but remained substantial: Nahimana (30 years), Barayagwiza (32 years), and Ngeze (35 years).

## Legal Principles

- Direct and public incitement to commit genocide is an inchoate international crime and may be committed through mass media where the elements are proven.
- Incitement must be **direct** in context: the communication must be understood as a call to commit genocidal violence, not merely as degrading, extremist, or inflammatory rhetoric.
- Incitement must be **public**: the communication must be made to a number of individuals in a public forum (including broadcast and widely distributed print media).
- Incitement to genocide requires **specific intent** to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group (dolus specialis); hateful expression alone does not satisfy this intent requirement.
- Temporal jurisdiction limits liability: convictions cannot rest on conduct outside the Tribunal’s authorized time period, and charge periods constrain which publications or broadcasts may ground particular convictions.
- Superior (command) responsibility may apply to media organizations where a superior has effective authority over personnel and fails to prevent or punish criminal broadcasts or publications.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber confirmed that media leaders can incur international criminal liability for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and, in appropriate cases, for failing to prevent or punish subordinates, while reversing time-barred or overbroad findings and tightening the legal boundary between hateful speech and criminal incitement.


Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda Nov. 28, 2007)