After spending more than 40 days in Darfur over the course of six months and engaging in over 2,700 consultations with people across Darfur, the African Union Panel on Darfur has delivered its final report. Chaired by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, the Panel described Darfur as a "Sudanese crisis" and stated:

It [the crisis in Darfur] results from a legacy of the unequal distribution of power and wealth in Sudan, whereby peripheral regions, including Darfur, have been historically neglected. The war in Darfur cannot be resolved outside the context of a response to the wider challenges facing Sudan as a nation, of democratic transformation, of creating a new and equitable political and developmental dispensation, and of giving the best chance for national unity.

The report offered recommendations on a range of critical issues, including: establishing a roadmap to end the violence; offering compensation for individual and communal losses; strengthening the UN force in Darfur; and mobilizing Sudan's neighbors to support the peace processes.

Addressing the difficult subject of justice and reconciliation, the Panel recommended forming a hybrid court with international and national judges and investigators. This recommendation was intended to respond to what it described as a polarized discussion of justice after the ICC arrest warrant for President Bashir. By including an international component, the Panel sought to alleviate concerns many Darfurians have about Sudan's justice system, while also acknowledging that the government of Sudan has not recognized the ICC's jurisdiction. Other mechanisms recommended include a truth, justice and reconciliation commission, reparations, and a plan for economic and social recovery.

Although the Panel sets a new standard for African leadership in resolving crises on the continent, the strength of this report will ultimately lie in its implementation. Meanwhile, signs of progress across the whole nation are being watched for carefully as Sudan begins a month-long voter registration drive in a key step towards the April 2010 presidential elections, the first democratic elections in 24 years.

The final report of the African Union Panel on Darfur is available here.

On this day nine years ago, the Rwanda "Media Trial" opened at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Three Rwandan journalists stood before the judges, accused of using the media to spread hate speech and directly incite violence during the 1994 genocide. The trial raised important questions about the nature of speech and genocide: Did media directly influence the killing? What speech is protected under the freedom of the press? How can the intent behind words be determined? In a landmark decision, ICTR judges ultimately convicted all three men of direct and public incitement to genocide, one of several punishable acts outlined in the Genocide Convention. Handing down the verdict, the ICTR judges declared to the men, "Without a firearm, machete, or any physical weapon, you caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians."

A newly published article in the Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Incitement to Genocide in International Law", traces the history and development of this crime's definition, from its foundation in the trials of major Nazi war criminals following the Holocaust and WWII to current debates over its use. In a second important trial at the ICTR, on December 2, 2008, ICTR judges found Rwandan composer and singer Simon Bikindi not guilty for his songs espousing hatred of Tutsi. However, they did convict him for statements he made on a loudspeaker in the Rwanda countryside during the genocide. The case demonstrated the difficulty of determining the implications and intent of speech.

Senior prosecutor for the ICTR and profiled here in our gallery of eyewitness testimonies, Stephen Rapp described the significance of issues raised during the Media Trial, "A key question is what kind of speech is protected and where the limits lie. It is important to draw that line. We hope the judgment will give the world some guidance."

One of the most wanted suspects in the 1994 genocide was arrested in Uganda this week and extradited to Tanzania to face trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The head of intelligence and military operations at Rwanda's elite military training school during the genocide, Idelphonse Nizeyimana was indicted by the ICTR in 2000 and charged with crimes against humanity, as well as complicity in genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. The indictment charged that:

From late 1990 until July 1994, military personnel, members of the government, political leaders, civil servants and other personalities conspired among themselves and with others to work out a plan with the intent to exterminate the civilian Tutsi population... In executing the plan, they organized, ordered and participated in the massacres perpetrated against the Tutsi population and moderate Hutus. Idelphonse Nizeyimana elaborated, adhered to and executed this plan.

Nizeyimana was also specifically accused of establishing "secret units of extremist elements" to help carry out the genocide.

Hiding out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the genocide, Nizeyimana served as a top commander in the FDLR, a rebel army comprised of perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide and responsible for countless atrocities across eastern Congo.

To learn more about the FDLR and its impact on the Congo, visit World is Witness.

In July 2004, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum declared a “genocide emergency” in Darfur, Sudan. This week, after extensive research and an assessment of conditions on the ground, the Museum is changing its categorization of conditions in Sudan to a “genocide warning” for the entire country.

As part of its mandate, the Committee on Conscience at the Holocaust Museum is charged with alerting the national conscience and stimulating action to prevent or halt acts of genocide and related crimes against humanity. For some time now, we have evaluated situations based on three graduated categories of urgency:

Emergency: Acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity are occurring or immediately threatened.

Warning: Organized violence is underway that threatens to become genocide or related crimes against humanity.

Watch: The circumstances indicate a serious potential for the eruption of mass violence that would be within the Committee’s mandate.

Drawing distinctions between these alert levels is important, albeit difficult, because doing so helps shape the proper policy for saving lives. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group through killing or other acts. It is a difficult crime to prove because of the high standard involved with documenting intent. It is also a very specific crime -- and should not be used as a catch-all term for all mass killing or atrocities.

Choosing how to categorize a particular situation, moreover, is not an exact science. At any given time, regrettably, there are often several wars or conflicts in the world where extreme violence against civilians is being perpetrated. Experts will often disagree where on the continuum to genocide a certain situation ought to be placed. Here at the Holocaust Museum, we pay extremely close attention to the facts on the ground in order to arrive at our own judgments.

Mindful of the power of the word genocide, we have always tried to be judicious. As the scale of the violence in Darfur became increasingly apparent in 2003 and 2004, circumstances demanded that we place the situation at our highest level of alert. The Sudanese government and allied militias conducted a series of offensives that drove civilians in the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit ethnic groups off their lands. More than two million people were displaced from their homes, and the government obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance from international groups. Mortality rates skyrocketed: the World Health Organization estimated that up to 200,000 people died during this period.

While reasonable people disagreed with our assessment -- the United Nations, for instance, never labeled the events in Darfur a “genocide” -- we strongly believe that our “emergency” designation was accurate.

But now conditions in Sudan have changed. Although violence persists in Darfur, it is of a different character, with rebel groups and criminal elements responsible for violence along with the Sudanese government. The Sudanese government has halted major offensives against civilian groups. Humanitarian assistance is being provided. Mortality rates have been significantly reduced: The United Nations estimates that about 1,500 people died as a result of violence in each 2007 and 2008. New satellite assessments by the U.S. government, highlighted in “Crisis in Darfur”, the Museum’s initiative with Google Earth, clearly show the level of destruction of Darfurian villages has decreased from the height of the Sudanese government’s systematic military campaign between 2003 and 2005.

The situation across Sudan remains perilous. In Darfur, millions remain at risk in displaced persons camps because it is too dangerous to return home, and those chiefly responsible for the crimes in Darfur remain in power in Khartoum. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the situation in South Sudan, where hundreds of civilians have been killed in fighting over the past several months. Over the course of the next year, the country faces significant political challenges -- with national elections and a referendum on southern independence. Our concerns focus on the challenges for Sudan as a whole and the imminent risks to large segments of the civilian population. By our own criteria, we believe it is most accurate to place Darfur and the rest of Sudan in our “genocide warning” category.

We also believe that the Sudanese government must be held accountable for its past and current behavior. The International Criminal Court has sought an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir and other Sudanese officials for their roles in orchestrating violence in Darfur. When this warrant was issued in March, the government responded by evicting 13 humanitarian organizations working in displaced persons camps -- another possible violation of international law. This is unacceptable: the Sudanese government must fulfill its responsibility to protect its own citizens.

We recognize that there is a significant public debate about how to describe what is happening in Darfur. We will continue to closely monitor conditions in Sudan, and we are ready to raise our alert level if necessary. Our hope is that an accurate description of the evolving situation will help elicit the appropriate policy and public response -- and lives will be saved.

--- Mike Abramowitz, Director of the Committee on Conscience

This week, President Obama nominated Stephen Rapp to become ambassador at large for war crimes issues. As a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Rapp led a landmark case against three Rwandan journalists charged with and found guilty of genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, and other crimes. In 2006, Rapp left the ICTR to become the prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. His nomination as ambassador awaits confirmation by the Senate.

Featured in a gallery of eyewitness testimonies in the Museum's new installation, From Memory to Action: Meeting the Challenge of Genocide, Stephen Rapp explains the importance of pursuing justice and his efforts to always put himself in the shoes of the victim. Watch his testimony and learn more about Rwanda and the ICTR.

In May, award-winning filmmaker Anne Aghion discussed her documentaries about Rwanda with Bridget Conley-Zilkic in an episode of the Museum's Voices on Genocide Prevention podcast series. Aghion described the three short films and one feature-length film she has produced and directed on the community-based justice process in Rwanda called gacaca. Her films present an intimate view of how Rwandans are living together after the genocide.

Now, Washingtonians have the opportunity to meet Aghion and view her film My Neighbor My Killer at the SilverDocs Film Festival on June 16th and 19th.

Gregory Gordon helped to prosecute the landmark "media" cases in Rwanda -- where hate speech, broadcast over the radio, was directly linked to the genocide of the Tutsi people. Gordon believes that the lesson learned in Rwanda could be applied to Iran and elsewhere, to prevent these incitement tactics from taking hold.

Here, Gordon discusses the power of words with Aleisa Fishman in the Museum's Voices on Antisemitism Podcast Series.

"We don't want another genocide to take place. And I think from a truth-telling perspective, one of the important aspects of what the international criminal tribunals are doing is to make a record of what happened, so that future generations can study it. And when we see these red flags going up, when we see these warning signs, we have to act."

Gordon is Director of the Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies and Assistant Professor at the School of Law, University of North Dakota.