The ICTR, also known as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, could only impose imprisonment, not capital punishments (“Rwanda genocide of 1994”). According to Encyclopedia Britannica, ”. . . the UN responded to charges of genocide in Rwanda by creating the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda . . . ”. Unlike the ICTR, the National Courts charged lower-level genocide suspects with capital punishments. Gacaca Courts accused people of minor crimes and were held locally in Rwanda. By 2010, they had held over 1.5 million cases (“Rwanda genocide of 1994”). Overall, the three different types of court systems had a variety of outcomes for the perpetrators (“Rwanda genocide of
The ICTR, also known as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, could only impose imprisonment, not capital punishments (“Rwanda genocide of 1994”). According to Encyclopedia Britannica, ”. . . the UN responded to charges of genocide in Rwanda by creating the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda . . . ”. Unlike the ICTR, the National Courts charged lower-level genocide suspects with capital punishments. Gacaca Courts accused people of minor crimes and were held locally in Rwanda. By 2010, they had held over 1.5 million cases (“Rwanda genocide of 1994”). Overall, the three different types of court systems had a variety of outcomes for the perpetrators (“Rwanda genocide of