Search results

Following violent clashes between two groups, one in favor of independence of East Timor and one against it, people of the former group sought refuge. In Liquiça, they hid in a church. In Diri, they hid in the house of one of their foremen. The attacks by an anti-independence militia caused the death and injury of many. It is claimed that several soldiers took part in the attacks. The question was whether the commander, Suratman, present in the area at time of both attacks, could be held responsible for what happened.

According to the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, this could not be done. The involvement of his personnel could not be established and it considered the militia to be completely separate from the military. Thus, the Tribunal established that he had no effective control over those who actually committed the Crimes Against Humanity. The Tribunal could not conclude that Suratman had not taken enough action to prevent human rights violations from taking place. According to the Tribunal, he was there to look for a solution to the best of his abilities. Suratman was acquitted, which added to the international community’s concern about the effectiveness of the Tribunal.

Guus Kouwenhoven was convicted in first instance for his involvement in supplying arms to Liberia and acquitted of having committed war crimes during the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003).

Both the prosecutor and Kouwenhoven appealed against this verdict. In an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals most importantly rejected the motion of the defense to bar the prosecutor from prosecuting this case. Based on the information before it, the Court did not find grave violations of Kouwenhoven's right to a fair trial. The Court did sustain the defense’s motion to have more witnesses heard by the investigative judge. The Court foresaw this to be a lengthy process, and therefore suspended Kouwenhoven’s detention. 

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. Although the Court of First Instance found him guilty of arms smuggling (but quashed the war crimes charges), the Court of Appeal later found that he could not be convicted for any of the charges due to lack of evidence.

Désiré Munyaneza was born in December 1966 in Rwanda. Between the beginning of April and the end of July 1994, Hutus killed approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. During that period, Munyaneza was one of the leaders of the Interahamwe Hutu paramilitary organisation in Butare, which played a major role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In 1997, Munyaneza fled to Canada to avoid prosecution. However, in October 2005 he was arrested in Canada on suspicion of his involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In May 2009, the Quebec Superior Court found Munyaneza guilty for the criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for abducting, raping, sexually assaulting, and killing Tutsis, and for pillaging of their properties. He was sentenced to life in prison.

After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.

These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. In first instance, the Court acquitted Stevanovic. After hearing several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about it and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven.

The Prosecutor appealed the decision, arguing that the Court had wrongly considered certain facts (error in fact) and that it had wrongly abstained from labelling certain conduct - namely, Stevanovic's participation in securing the road - as criminal (error in law). However, the Appellate Panel disagreed, dismissed the appeal and affirmed Stevanovic's acquittal.