Search results

On 11 April 2000, a Belgian investigating judge of the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, charging him with offences constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II (1977), and crimes against humanity. In the warrant, Mr Yerodia was accused of inciting racial hatred in various speeches in the DRC in August 1998, which had contributed to the massacre of several hundred persons and, thus, he was charged as perpetrator or co-perpetrator of these crimes. The arrest warrant, which asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Mr Yerodia to Belgium, was transmitted to the DRC in June 2000 and simultaneously circulated internationally through Interpol. On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice ruled that the issuance and circulation of the arrest warrant violated Belgium’s international obligations towards the DRC in that Belgium failed to respect, and infringed, Mr Yerodia’s immunity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the inviolability enjoyed by him under international law. The Court required Belgium to cancel the arrest warrant and inform as such the authorities to whom it was circulated.

This case marks the beginning in a series of proceedings before the British courts with regard to the (existence of a) duty to investigate alleged widespread torture and abuse of Iraqis by British troops during Iraq’s occupation, lasting from 2003 until 2008. The claimant in Mousa v. UK, Ali Zaki Mousa, represents about 100 Iraqis – with the possible addition of 100 more after intervention – who were allegedly tortured or otherwise ill-treated during their detention at British military bases in Iraq, often without being charged (many of them were allegedly released after a period of time without any information on the reasons for either their detention or release). The claimants asked the High Court of Justice to order the Secretary of State for Defence to start investigations into the alleged misconduct. The Court agreed with him, finding that the current investigating bodies were too much intertwined with the army itself and did not constitute independent bodies of judicial review, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, the Secretary of State was ordered to initiate proper investigations.

Ms. Feres brought a claim for compensation for the death of her husband, who was a member of the armed forces. Her husband died in a fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, which was a military post of the US. Feres claimed that the US was responsible for the death because it was known or should have been known that the barracks were unsafe.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The dismissal was confirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Feres appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the dismissal because the claim was based on law, the Federal Tort Claims Act, which did not provide for compensation in case of injuries suffered by military personnel in the course of activity incident to service.

On 20 October 1965, Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said, members of the Indonesian army, were found guilty for the murder of Susie Choo Kay Hoi, Juliet Goh Hwee Kuang and Yasin Bin Kesit. The deaths resulted from an explosion of the MacDonald House in Orchard Street, one of the main streets of Singapore. The accused were sentenced to death.

They appealed the decision by special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellants were not entitled to the protection generally afforded to army members when captured by the opposing army (protection for prisoners of war). The protection was refused because the appellants had committed acts of sabotage and were dressed in civilian clothes (not in uniform) at the time they planted the explosives and detonated them, as well as when they were arrested.

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).