Search results

In 1994, Simèon Nchamihigo was a Deputy Prosecutor in Cyangugu prefecture, Rwanda.

On 18 March 2010, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR reversed the Accused’s convictions rendered by Trial Chamber III on 24 September 2008 for genocide and murder as a crime against humanity for aiding and abetting the killing of Joséphine Mukashema, Hélène and Marie. The Appeals Chamber also quashed his conviction for genocide for instigating the killings at Shangi parish and Hanika parish. It also reversed his convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity in relation to instigating the massacre at Mibilizi parish and hospital and the massacre at Nyakanyinya school.

The Appeals Chamber affirmed Nchamihigo’s convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for instigating killings, including those of Karangwa, Dr. Nagafizi and Ndayisaba’s family on or about 7 April 1994 and for instigating the massacre in Gihundwe sector on 14 or 15 April 1994. It also affirmed his conviction for other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity for ordering the attack on Jean de Dieu Gakwandi and for genocide and murder as a crime against humanity for instigating the killing of Father Boneza.

The Appeals Chamber reduced Nchamihigo's sentence from life imprisonment to forty years' imprisonment.

In July 1995, the safe haven of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces resulting in the deaths of between 8 000 and 10 000 individuals. Members of the Dutch battalion who were responsible for the safeguarding of the enclave were completely overrun by the forces of General Mladic.

In 2007, a civil action was filed before the District Court of The Hague by 10 women whose family members died in the genocide as well the Mothers of Srebrenica, a Dutch association representing 6 000 survivors. They are demanding compensation from the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by alleging that both are responsible for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica.

In the present decision, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the 2008 decision of the District Court of The Hague that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the United Nations enjoyed absolute immunity from proceedings.

The Appellate Panel dismissed the appeal and the requests submitted by both the prosecutor and the defence, and upheld the first instance verdict of 12 June 2009. It found that the verdict was consistent with the relevant provisions of procedural law and that the long-term imprisonment of 25 years was properly imposed. The incident, also referred to as the Tuzla massacre, took place on 25 May 1995, on the day of General Tito’s birthday and the Relay of Youth in the former Yugoslavia.

Duško Tomić, Novak Đukić’s lawyer, stated that his client is a victim, used for the purpose of concealing the truth about those who are truly responsible for the incident. In a very controversial statement in 2009, Milorad Dodik, the prime minister of Republika Srpska, stated that the Tuzla attack had been staged. As a result, criminal charges were filed against him for abuse of power and inciting ethnic, racial and religious hatred.

The accused, Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven, was suspected of involvement in smuggling arms to Liberia (through his Liberian-based timber factories) during the Second Liberian Civil War - in violation of UN arms trade bans - and accomodating/complicity in the numerous war crimes that were committed with these weapons. He was taken into custody by the Dutch police in 2005, and put on trial.

Although the Court of First Instance found him guilty of arms smuggling (but quashed the war crimes charges), the Court of Appeal later found that he could not be convicted for any of the charges due to lack of evidence. The prosecution appealed and ultimately the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred by not properly motivating its decision not to allow an examining judge to assess whether two anonymous witnesses - who were allegedly very close to Kouwenhoven and Charles Taylor, and therefore key to the prosecution's case - should be admitted as protected witnesses, could be provided a protected witness-status so as to testify in the case. The appeals judgment was declared null and void and the case was referred to another Court of Appeals.

The case is currently still before the Court of Appeal: due to the case being assessed anew on all facts and evidence, an enormous amount of requests relating to the admission of (new) evidence has been filed.