Search results

Following the death of Hutu Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994, the newly installed and Hutu dominated Interim Government adopted and implemented a policy to execute all Tutsi civilians and moderate Hutu. Some 800,000 people died in the course of the genocide.

The Appellants in the present case, Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza held the posts of Minister for Trade and Civil Service respectively in the Interim Government. They were convicted by Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Their conviction was based upon their role in the decision to remove the Tutsi prefect of Butare and their presence at the installation ceremony of the new prefect at which Interim President Sindikubwabo incited the massacre of Tutsi civilians in Butare. The Appeals Chamber overturned the decision of the Trial Chamber on the grounds that the Appellants did not possess the necessary intent for conspiracy and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. They were consequently acquitted of all charges and released.

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, a nationwide campaign was launched against members of the Tutsi population who were subsequently targeted for elimination. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis died over a period of several months.

The present case before the Court of First Instance for Gisenyi prefecture in Rwanda considers a series of murders committed by Jules Baritima with the aid of Léni Nyirashako against Tutsis seeking refuge in the home of the latter. The Tribunal found Baritima guilty of genocide and sentenced him to death. Nyirashako was found guilty of murder. Both Accused were ordered to pay damages to the families of the victims.

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.  

Marko Samardžija was the commander of the 3rd Company of the Sanica Battalion within the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. He has been accused of ordering soldiers under his command that the Bosniak (Muslim) men from the settlements of Brkići and Balagića Brdo (in the Ključ Municipality) leave their houses. Men older than 18 and younger than 60 were then consequently murdered in groups of 5 to 10. This resulted in the deaths of at least 144 Bosniak men.

While taking into account the ICTY and ICTR case law, and while pointing out that the issue of legality was not violated, the Court determined that Samardžija assisted in the commission of crimes against humanity. As a result, on 3 November 2006, the Trial Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Marko Samardžija guilty of crimes against humanity (murder) and sentenced him to 26 years’ imprisonment