Search results

The Filártiga family, Dolly and Dr. Joel Filártiga, Paraguay nationals, claim that on 29 March 1976, Dr. Filártiga’s seventeen-year-old son Joelito Filártiga was kidnapped and tortured to death by the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at that time, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala (Peña). They claim that Joelito was maltreated because his father was a longstanding opponent of the government of Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner who ruled over the country since 1954.

In 1978, Joelito’s sister Dolly Filártiga and (separately) Américo Peña came to the United States. Dolly applied for political asylum, while Peña stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of Peña's presence in the United States and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who arrested and ordered the deportation of Peña for staying well past the expiration of his visa.

Immediately after, on 6 April 1979, the Filártiga family filed a complaint before US courts alleging that Peña had wrongfully caused Joelito's death by torture and seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $ 10,000,000. In support of federal jurisdiction, the Filártiga family relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute of 1789. They also sought to enjoin Peña’s deportation to ensure his availability for testimony at trial. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was absent and for forum non conveniens, but on appeal the Filártiga family succeeded: the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, ruled that even though the Filártiga family did not consist of US nationals and that the crime was committed outside the US, the family was allowed to bring a claim before US courts. It held that torture was a violation of the laws of nations and that federal jurisdiction was provided.

Hungary joined the Axis powers during World War II, effectively bringing the Hungarian police and the Gendarmerie, a paramilitary police unit, under the control and direction of the German SS. Imre Finta, originally a Hungarian national, was an officer and later a captain in the Hungarian Gendarmerie. In 1944, he was dispatched to Szeged to implement the Baky Order, a decree introduced by the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior calling for the isolation, exporpriation, ghettoization, concentration, entrainment and eventual deportation of all Hungarian Jews. In connection with this order, Finta was allegedly responsible for the detention of 8 617 Hungarian Jews in brickyard, forcibly stripping them of their valuables and deporting them to concentration camps under appalling conditions.

Under new Canadian war crimes legislation, Finta (a Canadian national and resident since 1956) was brought before the Toronto court to stand trial for eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was acquitted by a jury and this decision was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The present decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada and constituted the final appeal in the case against Finta. By a narrow margin of 4:3, the appeal was dismissed, as Finta did not possess the necessary mens rea for war crimes and crimes against humanity and the Baky Order, on which he relied, did not appear as manifestly unlawful at the time of its enactment.

The Accused in the present case was Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister. On 4 September 1998, he had pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity (murder and extermination) and Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and later requested that his guilty plea be quashed and that he stand trial.

Before the Appeals Chamber, Kambanda argued that he had not been assigned the lawyer of his choice and that even when he finally did receive legal representation the assignment of the lawyer was influenced by the Prosecution. He also accused his defense counsel, Mr. Oliver Michael Inglis, of inadequate representation. In addition, he claimed that the Registry had organized his detention in facilities where he was isolated from other detainees and that he felt oppressed by these arrangements. The Prosecution pointed out that, for a while, Kambanda had refused any legal representation until the Registry told him that in the interest of justice he had to be represented by counsel. He subsequently requested the Registry, in writing, to assign Mr. Inglis as his defence counsel.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds advanced by the Accused and upheld his sentence.

The Accused, Alfred Musema, was formerly director of the Gisovu Tea Factory in Kibuye Prefecture during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. On January 27 2000, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR convicted him of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Musema submitted six grounds of appeal against his conviction and argued that the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber had been too severe.

On 16 November 2001, the Appeals Chamber confirmed Musema's conviction for genocide and for extermination as a crime against humanity. The Chamber also upheld the sentence of imprisonment for life for those crimes. Musema’s conviction for rape as a crime against humanity was set aside by the Appeals Chamber on the basis of new evidence which it heard.

With regard to the appeal against the sentence, the Appeals Chamber noted that the quashing of his conviction for rape could not affect the exceptional gravity of the crimes for which he had been convicted. The Accused failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber had committed any error that would invalidate the sentence of imprisonment for life. 

In April 1992, the Serb forces gained control over the municipality of Prijedor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, capturing non-Serb men, women and children. The captured non-Serbs were taken to detention camps, such as the Keraterm factory outside the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The detainees were subjected to beatings, mistreatments and inhumane conditions. Between June and August 1992, Predrag Banović was a guard at the Keraterm camp. On 26 June 2003, Banović pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions, and Trial Chamber III found him guilty accordingly.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Banović, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crime with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Trial Chamber held that the crimes committed by Banović were of utmost gravity. Banović’s position of superiority over the detainees, the vulnerability of the victims, and the context in which the crimes were committed, were considered by the Trial Chamber as reflecting the gravity of the offence.

Furthermore, the Trial Chamber considered that Banović abused his authority over the detainees, which constituted an aggravating factor. Relevant mitigating factors were Banović’s guilty plea, his expression of remorse, and his personal circumstances.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Banović to 8 years of imprisonment.