Search results

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.

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

In March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries attempted to exclude from its appeal the political question doctrine, however, the Court of Appeals found that the other raised claims were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the political  question doctrine and therefore, must be considered together. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s earlier finding that the raised issues are political questions and hence, non-justiciable.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.

By the present decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals: the FSIA is not applicable to individuals so Samantar does not enjoy immunity from the present proceedings by virtue of it. Consequently, proceedings against him can continue.