TADA

The Genocide Convention (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) determines the courts competent to hear cases involving genocide allegations. In Article 6 of the Convention, it is stated that the competent courts are either the competent court of the country where the incident occurred or the competent international criminal court on which the parties will agree. In addition, Article 9 of the Convention stipulates states can bring disputes that may arise between them on the issue of genocide to the International Court of Justice.

In this respect, if the existence of the objective and subjective elements of the crime of genocide against a suspect has not been proven by the competent legal authorities, the crime has not been determined to have been committed with special intent (dolus specialis), and the competent court has not decided in the light of these data, such an allegation will be nothing but a slander with no legal value.

Nobody can be accused of Genocide without the decision of a competent court.

To date, no suspect has been charged with genocide or the equally serious crime of crimes against humanity without a competent international criminal court decision. As a matter of fact, the Nuremberg International Military Criminal Court found the notables of the German Nazis accused of crimes against humanity guilty after a long trial and sentenced 22 of them to death. Likewise, genocide suspects during the conflicts with Rwanda and Yugoslavia were convicted of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. Both courts are provisional courts established by the decision of the United Nations Security Council. Even for Saddam Hussein, who was accused of crimes against humanity, an Iraqi Special Tribunal was established to enforce the law. Finally, the International Court of Justice dealt with the genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia. The Court confirmed that the crime of genocide was committed in Srebrenica, but did not find Serbia guilty of genocide as a state. No judicial review took place in the case of Armenians that demonstrated a crime was committed with credible evidence.

Therefore, bills and decisions passed by non-competent political chambers such as heads of state, parliaments, or parliamentary special groups or their envoys, including ambassadors and opinions of such countries, commit a form of extrajudicial execution.