Search results

Miroslav Deronjić was indicted for his role in the commission of crimes in the village of Glogova (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1992. The attack resulted in the deaths of Bosnian Muslims and the destruction of their properties, homes, and religious institutions. Deronjić pleaded guilty to the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity and, subsequently, Trial Chamber II found him guilty.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II balanced the gravity of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It held that the large number of casualties, the extensively planned attack, Deronjić's abuse of his political position, and the acceptance of a false statement suggesting safety for the Muslims of Glogova were relevant aggravating factors. Trial Chamber II concluded that the relevant mitigating circumstances were Deronjić's guilty plea, his co-operation with the Prosecution and the Tribunal, his remorse, and contribution to the prevention of massacres, such as the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, from happening again.

Based on these factors, Trial Chamber II handed down a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1992. Shortly afterwards, a strategic plan was created with the aim to remove the non-Serb population from the newly proclaimed Bosnian Serb state. To this extent, the local police, the newly created army and Serb paramilitary groups engaged in a campaign of attacks resulting in the commission of crimes against the non-Serb population. During this time, Brđanin was the President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) Crisis Staff, which functioned as a center for cooperation between the Serb forces committing the crimes.

Trial Chamber II held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime of genocide was committed in the territory of the ARK. Therefore, Brđanin could not be found guilty on such charges.

However, the ARK Crisis Staff's decision to disarm the non-Serbs was found to have assisted and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime of torture, which led Trial Chamber II to find Brđanin guilty of aiding and abetting torture both as a crime against humanity and as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II furthermore found Brđanin guilty of other crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment.

On 19 February 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had convicted a senior Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Mugonero, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, and his son Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, a medical practitioner. On 13 December 2004, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentences of 10 years and 25 years in prison, respectively, imposed by the Trial Chamber.

Specifically, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the conviction of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana for aiding and abetting genocide and convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity after reversing his acquittal for the events which occurred in Bisesero. However, the Appeals Chamber quashed his conviction for aiding and abetting genocide for his participation in events which occurred at Mugonero.

Regarding Gérard Ntakirutimana, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide and convicted him for murder as a crime against humanity in relation to the killing of Charles Ukobizaba. The Appeals Chamber also convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity for the procurement of police officers and ammunition for the attack on the Mugonero complex. In addition, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide in relation to events which occurred at Bisesero, but found that his responsibility was that of an aider and abettor. However, the Chamber set aside his conviction for murder as a crime against humanity under the Bisesero indictment.

The Defence and Prosecution appeals were dismissed in all other respects. 

The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.

In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies, and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 21 December 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the named individual defendants were all federal employees at the time (e.g. former Secretaries of Defense, Admirals) and therefore benefited from immunity from prosecution under US law. Alleged violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act do not fall within the accepted exception to immunity because the Act itself does not create substantive rights and obligations that can be violated. 

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

By a decision of 17 June 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, the former mayor of Rusumo commune, of genocide and crimes against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber found that Gacumbitsi had 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. On appeal by the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify a number of important areas of law including the law applicable to instigation and rape as a crime against humanity. The Chamber dismissed all of Gacumbitsi’s grounds of appeal but entered new convictions for murder as a crime against humanity. Gacumbitsi’s sentence was increased to life imprisonment.