Search results

In April 1992, the Serb forces gained control over the municipality of Prijedor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, capturing non-Serb men, women and children. The captured non-Serbs were taken to detention camps, such as the Keraterm factory outside the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The detainees were subjected to beatings, mistreatments and inhumane conditions. Between June and August 1992, Predrag Banović was a guard at the Keraterm camp. On 26 June 2003, Banović pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions, and Trial Chamber III found him guilty accordingly.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Banović, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crime with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Trial Chamber held that the crimes committed by Banović were of utmost gravity. Banović’s position of superiority over the detainees, the vulnerability of the victims, and the context in which the crimes were committed, were considered by the Trial Chamber as reflecting the gravity of the offence.

Furthermore, the Trial Chamber considered that Banović abused his authority over the detainees, which constituted an aggravating factor. Relevant mitigating factors were Banović’s guilty plea, his expression of remorse, and his personal circumstances.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Banović to 8 years of imprisonment.

During the armed conflict that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia pitting Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) was the official military formation of the Bosnian Croats. The Accused, Tomo Jurinović, was a member of the HVO wing in Kotor Varoš. On 31 July 1992, he is alleged to have forcibly removed a family from their home in Novo Selo with three other members of the HVO. The family was then marched to the village of Ravne where they were detained by the Accused and others on the premises of a school. During this march, the family was routinely abused and one of its members died.

The Accused was indicted for war crimes by the Prosecutor’s Office in the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon request of the Prosecutor and with support of counsel for the Accused, the Court decided to transfer the case to the court of Banja Luka. The factors that were taken into consideration by the Court included the simplicity of the case by comparison to others before the Court (the Accused did not occupy the role of a commander, there was only one deceased, the case concerned one incident), the workload of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office and the expenses that could be saved by transferring the case. 

In 1998 the Kosovo Liberation Army engaged in a campaign against civilians in Dukagjin, Kosovo. The three accused, Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj were indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in these crimes.

The Trial Chamber, however, found that only Brahimaj was guilty on two counts of war crimes.

The Appeals Chamber examined the findings of the Trial Chamber and the arguments of both the Prosecution and Brahimaj. It decided to grant the first ground and partially grant the third ground of appeal of the Prosecution. For the first ground, it held that the Trial Chamber failed to ensure that potentially important evidence will be presented during the trial. Therefore, it ordered the re-trial of the three accused for certain counts. For the third ground, it ruled that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings relating to the crime of cruel treatment. Although it ruled that this crime did occur, the Appeals Chamber found Balaj not liable for it, and upheld the acquittal.

Out of the 19 grounds of appeal of Brahimaj, the Appeals Chamber only partially granted one, on the basis of errors in the Trial Chamber's findings with regard to the charges on torture.

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this, while the British government argued that they could not be held responsible for atrocities which, if proven, were committed by the Colonial government in the 1950s. Therefore, the British government requested the Court to dismiss the case before it would come to a trial. The Court refused to do this, stating that evidence existed of torture in pre-independence Kenya and of some UK involvement. This evidence, the Court reasoned (without establishing the liability of the British government), should be assessed in Court. 

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the success of the Rwandan Patriotic Front in gaining control of the country, members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and the Interahamwe militia who were widely considered to be responsible for the genocide, fled to the Kivu provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These exiled forces organised themselves into political and military groups designed to oppose the new Rwandan government.

One of these groups was the Forces Démocratiques pour la Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR) led by Ignace Murwanashyaka. The FDLR, composed of a military and a political wing, was coordinated by its Steering Committee of which the Suspect, Callixte Mbarushimana, was a member. The Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleges that Mbarushimana was responsible for the FDLR’s perpetration of attacks against the civilian populations in the Kivu provinces throughout 2009. The objective of these attacks, which included murder, rape, torture, mutilation and pillage, was to create a humanitarian catastrophe that would place pressure on the international community and draw attention to the FDLR’s political demands.

By a decision of 16 December 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC declined to confirm the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Mbarushimana thereby refusing to allow the case to continue to trial on the grounds that the Prosecution had not proved a number of key elements including the existence of a policy to attack the civilian population, and the existence of a group of persons acting with the common purpose of perpetrating crimes. Mbarushimana was subsequently released from the custody of the ICC and returned to France where he had been living since fleeing Rwanda. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Appeals Chamber of the ICC in its judgment of 30 May 2012.