Genocide in Rwanda, state responsibility to prosecute or extradite, and nonimmunity for heads of State and other public officials.

Source: (2011) Houston Journal of International Law. 34(1):57-85.

Rwanda’s significant dilemma primarily involved a lack of
adequate time and resources to prosecute numerous persons
who had been reasonably accused in competent and regularly
constituted judicial tribunals affording due process guarantees
required by international law9 and to provide effective penalties for all of those who had been found guilty,10 but a lack of time
and resources is not a recognizable limitation of Rwanda’s
international responsibility. With respect to the informal
Gacaca, they failed to adequately guarantee customary human
rights to be tried in a competent, independent, and impartial
tribunal established by law; to be informed promptly and in
detail of any charges; to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of one’s defense; to communicate with counsel of
one’s own choosing (and, therefore impliedly, to have legal
counsel); to examine or have examined witnesses against an
accused; to not be compelled to testify against oneself or to
confess guilt; and to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed
by a higher tribunal according to law.ii The sheer number of
proceedings, ultimately reported at more than 1,100,000 cases,12
underscores the problem. (excerpt)