Search results

The appellant is a former soldier of Dutchbat III, a battalion which was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission that was charged with the protection of civilians in the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. The appellant claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being confronted with the atrocities  against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and experiencing the explosion of a nearby mortar shell. He brought a complaint against the Dutch Minister of Defence and requested compensation for not receiving the necessary care after the mission.

On 1 November 2005, the District Court of The Hague held that the Minister of Defence failed to provide the necessary aftercare for his soldiers after the fall of Srebrenica and upon their return to the Netherlands.

On 25 March 2013, the Administrative High Court of the Netherlands ruled that necessary care was provided during the mission in Srebrenica because the soldiers were trained and equipped. However, the Court affirmed that the Dutch Minister of Defence failed to provide necessary care for his soldiers after they returned home. As a result, the Court found that the Minister could be held liable for the PTSD of the soldier which he developed after the mission.

The case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), represents a landmark legal proceeding focused on the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an Islamist militant, was charged with the war crime of deliberately attacking historic and religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012. These sites, revered for their historical and cultural significance, were targeted during a period of armed conflict in the region. 

Al Mahdi's case is notable for several reasons. Firstly, it was one of the first instances where an individual was prosecuted at the ICC solely for the destruction of cultural heritage. This underscored the increasing international recognition of the importance of preserving cultural history amidst armed conflicts. Secondly, Al Mahdi's admission of guilt – a rare occurrence in international criminal law – expedited the legal proceedings and highlighted the potential for reconciliation and acknowledgment of wrongdoing in such contexts. 

Ultimately, Al Mahdi was convicted under Articles 8(2)(e)(iv) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute and was sentenced to nine years in prison. His conviction served as a significant precedent, reinforcing the message that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a serious crime under international law and will not be tolerated.

Lieutenant Colonel Soedjarwo was a military commander of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) in the district of Dili between 9 August 1999 and 20 December 1999. Soedjarwo was found guilty of crimes against humanity because he failed to prevent his troops from attacking the Diocese office of Dili and the residence of Archbishop Belo in Dili on 4 and 6 September 1999. At least 13 civilians who were seeking refuge at these two places were killed during the attack.

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.

At the beginning of 2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.

On 21 February 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.

The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2008.