Search results

The Accused, Aloys Simba, is a retired lieutenant colonel, a member of the “Comrades of the Fifth of July”, who participated in the coup d’ état that brought former President Habyarimana to power in 1973, and was a member of parliament from 1989 to 1993.

The Trial Chamber had found Simba guilty of genocide for his role in the killing of Tutsi civilians at Murambi Technical School and Kaduha Parish. Furthermore, he had been convicted of extermination as a crime against humanity based on the same facts. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment, with credit being given for time already served.

Simba appealed his convictions and his sentence, while the Prosecution submitted two grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by both Simba and the Prosecutor and affirmed the sentence of twenty-five years of imprisonment. 

Ildephonse Hategekimana was born in Mugina Commne, Gitarama Prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, during the events in Rwanda, he held the rank of lieutenant in the Rwandan army. As determined by Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal, during the relevant period covered by the indictment, Hategekimana was the commander of the Ngoma Military Camp in Butare Prefecture.

On 7 September 2007, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal requested the transfer of Hategekimana’s case for trial before Rwandan courts. On 19 June 2008 the Chamber rejected the request due to fears that the Accused would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Therefore, the case was tried before Trial Chamber II of the ICTR. On 16 March 2009, Hategekimana was found guilty by the Trial Chamber of genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and rape as a crime against humanity for his role in ordering the killing of Tutsi refugees at the Ngoma church. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hategekimana appealed the Trial judgment on seven grounds, challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of Appeal and affirmed Hategekimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. 

In October 2012 a group of Somali pirates boarded the Iranian dhow "Mohsen" and took the Iranian and Pakistani crewmembers hostage. They were noted by Dutch navy vessel HNLMS Rotterdam (part of NATO's Ocean Shield anti-piracy operation). When Navy marines approached the ship in inflatable boats (RHIBs) they came under fire from both the Mohsen and ashore. The Rotterdam responded, causing the Mohsen to catch fire, after which it sank. 25 people were rescued out of the water, while at least one pirate died during the exchange of fire.

Of the 25 rescued people, at least four were accused of piracy. They were put on separate trials in the Netherlands and charged with piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter.

In the current case, accused V15 was ultimately acquitted of the piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter charges due to a significant lack of evidence. However, since it was clear that armed violence against the Navy personnel had occurred and taking into consideration that V15 did carry a weapon and had cooperated with the shooters, he was found guilty of complicity in the use of (armed) violence against persons aboard a ship. Considering the grave nature of shooting at unprotected persons in inflatable boats an aggravating factor and weighing this against the harsh living conditions in Somalia and the dire personal situation of V15, the Court sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment.

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.  

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the three defendants of the charges entered against them and found that the prosecution had not been able to establish a link between the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and Polri (Resort Police of the Police of Republic of Indonesia), on the one hand, and the BMP, on the other. The former were official governmental bodies, whereas the latter were militia. The judgment was publicly criticized as it was argued that the TNI and the riot police were indeed involved in the violence, including the killing of the 22 civilians.