Search results

The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK. 

On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I found him guilty. 

Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the crime Babić admitted to with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the adequate sentence. 

It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić received a sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba).

The District Court granted the motion, after being satisfied that a four-part test was fulfilled. This test required the Court to balance four relevant factors, namely: (a) the irreparable injury to the Petitioners in the absence of the injunction; (b) the likelihood of success of the habeas corpus motion; (c) the harm to the US government; and (d) the public interest.

The District Court ruled that the US government must give the lawyers of the detainees 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged. 

On 20 June 1992 in the village of Hlapčevići, Ramić ordered a group of around eight soldiers to surround three Serb inhabitants’ houses. Following this, together with other soldiers, he took six individuals of Serb ethnicity out of the houses and ordered them to move toward the Youth Centre in the village of Hlapčevići. On their way to the Centre, Ramić stopped the group and called one person to step out and to inform him about the location of hidden weapons and minefields. After this person did not answer, Ramić shot him with an automatic firearm, and then turned to the other captured civilians and fired at them as well. As a consequence, four civilians were killed and two wounded. These acts constitute a violation of the rules of the laws of war, as set out in the Geneva Conventions.

Ramić pleaded not guilty. However on 17 July 2007 the Court sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment for War Crimes against Civilians. On 21 November 2007 the Appellate Panel issued the final verdict in the Ramić case, finding that the appeal was unfounded and that the Trial Panel’s verdict sentencing Ramić to 30 years of long-term imprisonment had to be upheld.

During the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, the United States sprayed toxic herbicides in areas of South Vietnam. Herbicides were considered effective in meeting important US and allied military objectives in Vietnam. Vietnamese nationals and a Vietnamese organisation representing the victims of Agent Orange brought a case before US court against several US-registered companies that were deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War. They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides.

The Plaintiffs brought the case to court under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants the district courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien claiming damages for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty of the United States. They also asserted claims grounded in domestic tort law. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

The District court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of international law because Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) was used to protect United States troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations. On 22 February 2008, the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision.

During the Rwanda genocide, Bikindi was a famous singer and composer, and the leader of a ballet troupe, the Irindiro.

The Prosecution charged Bikindi with six Counts: conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide or, alternatively, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, murder and persecution as crimes against humanity.

On 2 December 2008, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found the Accused guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide for his calls to exterminate Tutsi at the end of June 1994 on the Kivumu-Kayone road and acquitted him on all other Counts. The Chamber further concluded that there were no mitigating factors, and that the fact that the Accused had used his influence to incite genocide was an aggravating factor. The Chamber sentenced Bikindi to 15 years of imprisonment.