Opinion ID: 708054
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Text: 34 (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 35 (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births with the group; 36 (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 37 Convention on Genocide art. II. Especially pertinent to the pending appeal, the Convention makes clear that [p]ersons committing genocide ... shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Id. art. IV (emphasis added). These authorities unambiguously reflect that, from its incorporation into international law, the proscription of genocide has applied equally to state and non-state actors. 38 The applicability of this norm to private individuals is also confirmed by the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091 (1988), which criminalizes acts of genocide without regard to whether the offender is acting under color of law, see id. Sec. 1091(a) ([w]hoever commits genocide shall be punished), if the crime is committed within the United States or by a U.S. national, id. Sec. 1091(d). Though Congress provided that the Genocide Convention Implementation Act shall not be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding, id. Sec. 1092, the legislative decision not to create a new private remedy does not imply that a private remedy is not already available under the Alien Tort Act. Nothing in the Genocide Convention Implementation Act or its legislative history reveals an intent by Congress to repeal the Alien Tort Act insofar as it applies to genocide, 6 and the two statutes are surely not repugnant to each other. Under these circumstances, it would be improper to construe the Genocide Convention Implementation Act as repealing the Alien Tort Act by implication. See Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 524, 107 S.Ct. 1391, 1392, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) ([R]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be found unless an intent to repeal is clear and manifest.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1026, 1034 (2d Cir.) (mutual exclusivity of statutes is required to demonstrate Congress's clear, affirmative intent to repeal), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941, 111 S.Ct. 2235, 114 L.Ed.2d 477 (1991). 39 Appellants' allegations that Karadzic personally planned and ordered a campaign of murder, rape, forced impregnation, and other forms of torture designed to destroy the religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats clearly state a violation of the international law norm proscribing genocide, regardless of whether Karadzic acted under color of law or as a private individual. The District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to the Alien Tort Act. 40 (b) War crimes. Plaintiffs also contend that the acts of murder, rape, torture, and arbitrary detention of civilians, committed in the course of hostilities, violate the law of war. Atrocities of the types alleged here have long been recognized in international law as violations of the law of war. See In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 14, 66 S.Ct. 340, 347, 90 L.Ed. 499 (1946). Moreover, international law imposes an affirmative duty on military commanders to take appropriate measures within their power to control troops under their command for the prevention of such atrocities. Id. at 15-16, 66 S.Ct. at 347-48. 41 After the Second World War, the law of war was codified in the four Geneva Conventions, 7 which have been ratified by more than 180 nations, including the United States, see Treaties in Force, supra, at 398-99. Common article 3, which is substantially identical in each of the four Conventions, applies to armed conflict[s] not of an international character and binds each Party to the conflict ... to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 42 Persons taking no active part in the hostilities ... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 43 To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: 44 (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; 45 (b) taking of hostages; 46