Sometimes in April

Sometimes in April depicts the period of the massive killing, slavery and

oppression against the Tutsi race, which some international authorities refer to as

genocide, in Rwanda on 1994. Conflict and discrimination between the two

races, Hutus and Tutsis caused the genocide. The beginning of the film narrates

the history of the two races. For centuries, the three races in Rwanda, including

Hutu and Tutsi shared the same culture, language and religion. However, upon

the control of Belgian Government on Rwanda, a racial classification was made,

elevating the Tutsis from the Hutus. Hence, Hutus were discriminated, oppressed

and enslaved. For more or less 50 years, this system run over Rwanda until the

Belgian Government handed the control to Hutus. Armed with power, Hutus

institutionalized anti-Tutsi segregation and massacre.

On the perspective of International Humanitarian Law, the film raised several

issues. One, what occurred in Rwanda. Are these merely acts of genocide or

genocide itself? Two, what are the offenses committed by the participants?

Three, did the Rwandan Government failed its duty to protect its people? Four,

was there failure on part of the United Nations and its members to respond timely

to the situation in Rwanda?

On the first issue, according to the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide means any of the following acts

committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or

religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious

bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole

or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e)

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. As shown by the film,

nearly 1 Million Tutsis, excluding those which those were unaccounted were

deliberately killed for the purpose of eliminating their race. There was even a list

of people to be killed. This clearly falls within the definition of genocide. However,

the international authorities, including the western governments hesitated to

adopt the term genocide. They were very critical in adopting the term.

On the second issue, the offenses committed by the participants is

determined with consideration that there is an armed conflict in Rwanda. In the

case of Tadic, armed conflict is protracted armed violence between governmental

authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.

In the case of Rwanda, it was evident that armed conflict existed.The participants

used weapons such as guns,grenades, knifes and long swords to kill. Hence, the

International Humanitarian Laws apply. Under IHL, civilians, sick, wounded and

surrendered could not be killed or attacked, unless they are participating in the

armed conflict. However, this rule was deliberately violated by the Hutu armed

organizations. One of the scenes that showed this violation was that when Hutus

came in the Catholic School for girls. When the girls refused to segregate

themselves, they were instantaneously killed by the armed Hutus. It should be

noted that the girls were not taking arms against the Hutus. Hence, there is no

reason for the latter to kill the civilian girls. Also, under the IHL, rape is a war

crime, hence when committed is a violation and therefore punishable. However,

some Hutus raped some of the women they captured. This was shown when the

wife of the protagonist was raped. More importantly, the act of massively killing

the Tutsi race is a war crime itself. Under IHL, genocide is a war crime. With the

premise that what occurred in Rwanda is genocide, the participants therein

already committed a war crime.

On the third issue, the states has inherent duty to protect its people

especially when there is a clear threat in their lives. However, in the film, it was

shown that the Rwandan government was passive in taking steps to suppress

the killings and violations against its people. The newly seated president therein

resisted in cooperating with the international authorities to stop the oppressive

situation.

Lastly, the film portrayed the hesitation of the United Nations and its

members to timely act on the situation in Rwanda. The United Nations is an

impartial body which is responsible in preservation and/or restoration of peace in

case of armed conflict. However, it is evident in the film, taking into consideration

that nearly 1 Million people died, that the United Nations, together with its

western country members, belatedly acted on the matter. One of the theories in

the film is that the United nations and its members were not dependent on African

nations. Hence, the situation will not have an impact against the former. In my

opinion, there is failure on part of these bodies to act timely on the matter taking

into consideration that the genocide happened on 1994 when the international

community is already aware of international humanitarian issues.

 The film made me contemplate the above issues. While watching the film, I

recalled the rules of international humanitarian law, such as when they are

applicable and violated. I was able to to apply the previous discussion on

international humanitarian law in discussing the above issues.

Vetus, Lilibeth Grace L.

American Sniper

The American Sniper is a film based on a true story of an American seal

deployed in Iraq during the present war. The protagonist was assigned in Iraq as

part of Americas operation in capturing the participants in the 9/11 attack. It

shows an American soldiers dilemmas in everyday of his life spent in war. These

dilemmas include the choice of serving the country for the love of it or being safe

with his family back in America.

On the perspective of international humanitarian law, there are several issues

raised in the film. Generally, these issues revolve on two of the three basic

international humanitarian law rules, distinction and precaution. These are first,

who can be attacked during an armed conflict? Second, can a civilian be

attacked? Is there an exception to this rule? Third, how to distinguished the

civilians from the participants? What is the test? Fourth, are the measures used

by the American military and the non-state participants allowed by the

international humanitarian law?

On the first issue, One of the scenes of the film showed a child who picked

up a heavy gun. The protagonist determined the status of the child as to whether

he is a civilian or not. This is because the international humanitarian law dictates

that only the state participants/military and non-state participants can be attacked

during armed conflict. The civilians, the sick, the wounded and those who

surrendered cannot be targeted. If they are attacked, it would constitute as a war

crime. When the protagonist assassinates, he distinguishes his target. he

determines whether or not they are civilians or not.

On the second issue, the first part of the film showed one of the most chaotic

dilemma of a soldier participating in an armed conflict, targeting a woman and a

child. Under the international humanitarian law, as a general rule, civilians cannot

be target during armed conflicts. The exception however is when the civilians

directly participate in the armed conflict by such as when they target the military.

There was a portion in the film wherein the protagonists killed 6 seemingly

civilians because these civilians participated in the armed conflict. Some of them

threw grenades, some planted. Under the international humanitarian law, the

protagonist is allowed to target the said civilians because the latter already

participated.

The third issue relates to the second issue. How to distinguish the innocent

civilians from the participants who seem to be civilians? The international

humanitarian law does not provide for the test in determining who are civilians

and those who are not. For non-state participants, it is confusing to distinguish

them because they do not have a uniform or common identity such as clothes or

marks. The first scene of the film shows the protagonists dilemma in deciding

whether his target woman and child are civilians or not. This was the scene

where he was on duty as an assassin and there was a woman with his child

holding a seemingly grenade. He was told by his commander that it is his call.

Hence, he has the burden of choosing either risking the life of his fellow soldier or
killing a possible civilian. There was also a scene where the protagonist was

questioned by his commander of hitting someone who seems to be a mere

civilian because the latter was merely holding a Quoran. There lies the difficulty

in distinction. On this note, I also remember the scene where the assassins of the

terrorists targeted the soldiers during operations. I find it unfair against the

military soldiers because they can be easily targeted because their identity is

easily ascertainable because they have uniform or common identity, their military

uniform.

Lastly, on precautions, were the measures taken by the American soldier

justified under international humanitarian law? According to the International

Committee on Red Cross, precaution means that the military must choose

means and methods of attack that avoid, or at least keep to a minimum, the

incidental harm to civilians and civilian property. It must refrain from launching an

attack if it seems clear that the losses or damage caused would be excessive in

relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Based on the

film, I can say that the American military abide with this rule. The beginning of the

film shows the operation of the American military. There was a tank and few

soldiers moving forward. A woman and her child came out from a building. The

tank was not used against the woman and child who turn out to be suicide

bombers. Instead, the protagonist, using a rifle hit the child, then the woman,

after it became clear to him that they are suicide bombers. The military employed

a less force against them.

 All of these issues involve the 2 basic rules in international humanitarian law

which are distinction and precaution. The application of distinction is important

because they determine who can be targeted and who cannot be. Precaution on

the other hand sets the reasonable measures could only be used against the

participants. A mistake in application of distinction and precaution could result to

a violation of the international humanitarian law.