Search results

The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes committed during the Croatian war of independence (1991-1995).

Glavaš has always denied any wrongdoing and he protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged that the trial was based on “political, not legal statements.” Nevertheless, after several appeals, on 2 June 2010, the Croatian Supreme Court sentenced Glavaš to eight years’ imprisonment for the war crimes of murder and torture of civilians. Glavaš attempted to evade sitting out his sentence by fleeing to Bosnia, but to no avail: there, he was arrested as well and the Bosnian courts upheld the verdict issued by their Croatian colleagues.

After the fall of the Cambodian government in 1975, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Pol Pot, came to power and renamed the State the Democratic Kampuchea. An armed conflict broke out with Vietnam, which lasted until 1979. From 1975 until 1979, Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea sought to establish a revolutionary State and introduced a policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies, a form of physical and psychological destruction that consisted of arbitrary detention, torture and execution. This policy lead to the deaths of an estimated two million people.

The Accused, Ieng Thirith, was the highest-ranking female in the regime, Pol Pot’s sister-in-law and the wife of Ieng Sary, the regime’s former Foreign Minister. Ieng Thirith was indicted in 2010 on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for her role in the events. In September 2012, on the basis of repeated examinations by multiple medical experts, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia found the now 80-year-old Ieng Thirith unfit to stand trial due to her dementia and released her subject to certain conditions. Although the charges have not been withdrawn, a trial is unlikely to happen in the future considering her age and mental state.

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff had already sought (and failed to find) two interlocutory injunctions to prevent a bridge from being built to Hindmarsh in South Australia. It was held that this construction would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. The judge did not agree that the construction would amount to genocide and reiterated earlier judgments that genocide was not a criminal act under Australian law. Treaties are not a direct source of law in Australia, and neither is customary international law.

In 2002, with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters. The Accused, Sabino Gouveia Leite, was the Chief of the village of Guda in the sub-district of Lolotoe.

In May 1999, Leite provided information to the Kaer Metin Merah Putih militia (KMP) regarding the identity of independence supporters or persons associated with or sypathetic to the pro-independence group Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). As a result, three victims were forcible removed from their homes and detained in the home sof various KMP members until July 1999. Others were interrogated and placed in the KORAMIL, a military command centre where they were subject to beatings and extremely unhygienic living conditions.

The Accused pleaded guilty to the crimes against humanity of imprisonment, torture and other inhumane acts. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes.

On 9 November 2004, Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was serving in  Iraq as a member of the US Armed Forces. Nazario was leading a squad of 13 Marines on house-to-house searches. During these searches, Nazario allegedly killed two Iraqis, and encouraged two squad members to shoot two others. The alleged acts took place in Fallujah, Iraq.

In 2007, Jose Louis Nazario was brought before the US District Court in California. He was the first veteran to be tried in a civilian US court for alleged war crimes in Iraq.

The defence argued that there was no evidence of a deceased person, nor had the government provided a name or a sufficient description of any of the alleged victims. Deliberating in less than six hours, the jury found Nazario not guilty of manslaughter or assault. Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was acquitted on all charges on 28 August 2008.