Search results

In August 1995, the Croatian forces conducted a rapid offensive attack against the Krajina region which had the purpose of removing ethnic Serbs, and make the region suitable for Croats instead. Both Gotovina and Markač were in a high military position that controlled the operation in Krajina.

The Chamber found that both Gotovina and Markač participated in a joint criminal enterprise, which aimed at the removal of Serbs from Krajina. Their rank and position allowed them control over the conduct of the military personnel, and they were aware of the criminal behavior that occurred in Krajina, as well as the underlying common purpose.

The Chamber found them guilty; General Gotovina received a 24 year sentence, while Markač was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The Chamber acquitted Čermak, because it found that he did not have control over the acts of the military, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that he knew that his conduct in Knin was intended to further the goal of repopulating Krajina with Croats.

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Members of the pre-dominantly Hutu Rwandan Armed Forces, including the Rwandan Army (FAR), the Gendarmerie Nationale and the elite reconnaissance unit, the RECCE Battalion, along with Interahamwe militia members perpetrated a series of attacks against largely unarmed Tutsi civilians.

The incidents concerned by the present case are numerous and include the killings of Tutsi at Kansi Parish, St André College, Nyanza Hill, Musambara commune office and many more. Women and girls were also raped. The Prime Minister and the Belgian personnel guarding her were also assassinated by members of the RECCE Battalion. The present case brings together four key military leaders, responsible for the conduct of the soldiers and gendarmes who perpetrated the afore-mentioned attacks: Ndindiliyimana was Chief of the Gendarmerie Nationale, Bizimungu was head of the FAR, Nzuwonemeye was Commander of the RECCE Battalion and Sagahutu was commander of one of the combat squadrons of the same RECCE Battalion. In light of their authority over their respective forces, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found Ndindiliyimana guily of genocide, crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; Bizimungu guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, murder and rape as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; and Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu guilty of crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. 

Bizimungu received a 30-year sentence, Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu each received 20 year sentences. Controversially, Ndindiliyimana received a sentence for time served, meaning that his 11 years in detention prior to and during the trial sufficed and he was released following the judgment. On Appeal, Ndindiliyimana and Nzuwonemeye were aquitted, Sagahutu had his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity affirmed, but the sentence lowered from 20 to 15 years and Bizimungu's sentence was upheld to 30 years inprisonment.

Ali Mahmud Ali Shafi is a Palestinian national who was spying for Israel until he moved to Israel in 1994. On his return to Palestine in 2001, he was arrested by Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers and subsequently brought to a PA security building where he was detained for several months. During that period, he was severely beaten, left without any clothes, and was not permitted to take a bath. In 2002, Ali Shafi was forced to sign a confession which was used as the basis for his conviction of killing the Palestinian leader Raed al Karmi and for spying for Israel. He was sentenced to death. However, in March 2002, Ali Shafi escaped.

In 2009, Ali Shafi brought a claim in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the PA and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The District Court dismissed the complaint. On 14 June 2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed the decision because claims can only be brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against state actors. The defendants in this case were no state actors and therefore appellants failed to state a claim within the jurisdiction conferred by the ATS.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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.