skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: 'comfort women'

> Refine results with advanced case search

106 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 13 of 22   next > last >>

Bouterse: Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Court v. Desiré Bouterse

Judgment, 18 Sep 2001, Supreme Court, The Netherlands

Desiré Bouterse, a Surinamese politician, was born on 13 October 1945. Bouterse led a coup d’état in 1980 and became the military leader of Suriname until 1987. Relatives of victims of the so-called December murders of 8 and 9 December 1982, when 15 opponents of the military regime headed by Bouterse were tortured and subsequently killed, brought a complaint against Bouterse in the Netherlands. On 18 September 2001, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed the action against Bouterse. The Court held that Bouterse could not be prosecuted because he was not connected in any way to the Netherlands. Moreover, the acts committed under the military dictatorship of Bouterse were not criminalised as such at the time they were committed.


Sedyono et al.: The Prosecutor v. Herman Sedyono, Liliek Koeshadianto, Gatot Subyakto, Achmad Syamsudin and Sugito

Judgement, 15 Aug 2002, The Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal at the Human Rights Court of Justice of Central Jakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia

After the referendum on the independence of East Timor from Indonesia, violence erupted between pro-independence and pro-integration groups. On September 6, 1999 the Ave Maria church in Suai, in the Kovalima regency, in which civilians were taking refuge, was attacked by pro-integration militias Laksaur and Mahidi. The militias entered the church with homemade firearms and sharp weapons, killing 27 people.

At the time of the attack on the church in Suai, Herman Sedyono, an Indonesian Army Officer, was the regent or Chief of Kovalima regency and as such the head of government and the head of the regional authorities.

Before the attack a meeting took place at the official residence of Herman Sedyono. Herman Sedyono and the four other accused, Lilik Kushardianto,  Ahmad Syamsuddin, Sugito (Indonesian military officials) and Gatot Subyakto (a police officer) were all present at the incident at the Suai Church.

The Court found that grave human rights violations, in the form of murder as a crime against humanity, had taken place at the Suai Church. The crimes against humanity were committed by militia groups Laksaur and Mahidi. The Court found insufficient proof that the accused were responsible for the attacks on the basis of command responsibility. With regard to Herman Sedyono and Gatot Subyakto, the Court found that they were not military commanders or persons that effectively act as military commanders, as Sedyono was in function of head of the government and Subyakto was a police officer. The Court concluded that there was no organisational relation between the militias and the accused and that the accused had no effective control over the militias, so that the accused could not be held responsible for their actions. 


Simić: The Prosecutor v. Milan Simić

Sentencing Judgment , 17 Oct 2002, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

The events giving rise to the case have occurred in the municipality of Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. After the Serb forces took over control, non-Serb civilians were detained at several prison camps throughout the municipality. One such facility was the primary school in Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Milan Simić together with other Serb men severely beat and mistreated several detainees held at the primary school during the summer of 1992. In May 2002, Simić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of torture. Trial Chamber II entered a finding of guilt, and was left with the issue of determining the appropriate sentence for Simić.

With respect to the aggravating factors, Trial Chamber II accorded relevance to the gravity of the offence, Simić’s position of authority, the vulnerability and inferior status of the victims, and Simić’s discriminatory intent.

Trial Chamber II also took into consideration mitigating circumstances, including: Simić’s guilty plea, his remorse, his voluntary surrender, his lack of prior criminal conduct, his comportment at the Detention Unit and general co-operation with the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution.

After balancing these factors, Trial Chamber II sentenced Simić to 5 years of imprisonment.


Gacumbitsi: The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi

Judgment, 17 Jun 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

The Accused in the present case, Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, was the mayor of Rusumo commune. He used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Gacumbitsi of genocide and the crimes against humanity of rape and extermination. He was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. 


Muhimana: The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana

Judgement and Sentence, 28 Apr 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR sentenced Mikaeli Muhimana to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Trial Chamber found Muhimana, a former conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye prefecture, guilty on three counts: genocide, rape as a crime against humanity and murder as a crime against humanity.

The Chamber found Muhimana guilty of murdering several Tutsi civilians, including a pregnant woman whom he had disembowelled in order to see what the foetus looked like. The Chamber found that Muhimana’s active participation in the decapitation of Assiel Kabanda, and the subsequent public display of his severed head also constituted an aggravating factor. The Accused was found criminally liable for committing and abetting rapes as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Tutsi civilian population. He had personally raped several Tutsi women in his home and at other locations. He also raped a girl whom he believed to be Tutsi, and apologized to her when he later found out that she was, in fact, Hutu.


<< first < prev   page 13 of 22   next > last >>