Search results

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Jose Cardoso, was the Deputy Commander and subsequently the Commander of the pro-autonomy militia group Kaer Metin Merah Putih (KMMP). From May until September 1999, he issued a number of orders to attack both known and suspected independence supporters. These individuals were arrested, beaten and detained for months in cramped and extremely unhygienic conditions without regular access to food or water. One victim had his eat cut off and force fed to him on orders of the Accused. Two women were raped by the Accused. Two other individuals were murdered as a result of the Accused’s orders.

Cardoso was convicted for 9 counts of crimes against humanity by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

The three Accused – Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze - were charged in separate indictments but were tried jointly for their role in the Rwandan genocide. They were all charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity. Nahimana and Barayagwiza were additionally charged murder as a crime against humanity, while Barayagwiza was also charged with war crimes.

On 3 December 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found the three Accused guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity. They were found not guilty of complicity in genocide and of murder as a crime against humanity. Barayagwiza was also acquitted of the charges for war crimes. The Chamber sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life imprisonment. Regarding Barayagwiza, the Chamber considered that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment, but, in its decisions dated 31 March 2000, the Appeals Chamber had decided that for the violation of his rights, the Accused was entitled to a reduction of his sentence, if he was found guilty. Therefore, the Trial Chamber sentenced him to twenty-seven years, three months and twenty-one days. 

From March 1981 through July 1994 André Ntagerura served as a minister in the Rwandan Government. His last position was as Minister of Transport and Communications in the interim government. From 4 July 1992 to 17 July 1994, Emmanuel Bagambiki served as the prefect of Cyangugu. Samuel Imanishimwe, a lieutenant in the Rwandan Armed Forces, served as the acting commander of the Cyangugu military camp from October 1993 until he left Rwanda in July 1994.

On 7 July 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR reduced Samuel Imanishimwe’s sentence from 27 to 12 years imprisonment and recalled that it had confirmed the acquittals of André Ntagerura, former Minister of Transport and Communications, and Emmanuel Bagambiki, former Prefect of Cyangugu on 8 February 2006. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber granted Imanishimwe’s first ground of appeal, quashing his convictions for genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and serious violations of Article 3 Common of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II for the events which took place at the Gashirabwoba football stadium. The Appeals Chamber however, affirmed the convictions entered against Imanishimwe for murder, imprisonment and torture as crimes against humanity and for murder, torture and cruel treatment as serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II.

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Residing in exile in Senegal, he was unsuccessfully brought before the Senegalese courts in 2000-2001 at which time the Supreme Court of Senegal confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the acts allegedly committed by Habré were not criminalised under domestic law. In response to an African Union mandate to prosecute Habré, Senegal amended its legislation to provide for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and acts of torture committed by foreign nationals outside of Senegalese territory.

Habré brought a complaint against Senegal before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa alleging that the new legislation breached his human rights, including the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law. The Court held, in a decision that has been criticised for lack of legal basis, that Senegal would violate the principle of non-retroactivity if its tried Habré in its domestic courts. Instead, international custom mandates that Senegal establish a special tribunal to try and prosecute Habté. 

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations.