Search results

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s verdict. In its ruling, it devoted most attention to the ‘political question doctrine’ which disallows Courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases which should remain within the realm of other governmental branches. Since the bulldozers had been paid for by the US, the Court reasoned, a ruling on the merits would also be a judicial opinion about important aspects of US foreign policy. Foreign policy should be decided on by the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary, the Court reasoned.    

In March 1997, members of the Sierra Leone Army overthrew the government of President Kabbah and installed a new government, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council.

Brima, Kamara and Kanu were high-ranking members of the AFRC who were convicted by Trial Chamber II of the Special Court for Sierra Leone of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In particular, they ordered, committed, planned or were responsible as superiors for the murders, beatings, mutilations, rapes, forced marriages, abductions, looting, collective punishments and recruitment of child soldiers perpetrated by the AFRC forces. They were sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment (Brima and Kanu) and 45 years’ imprisonment (Kamara). On appeal, the Appeals Chamber upheld the convictions and the sentencing, despite protests from the Accused that the terms of imprisonment were excessively harsh. The Chamber also made legal findings with respect to forced marriage, finding that it is a distinct crime against humanity from sexual slavery, a novelty in international criminal law. 

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. 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.

Milorad Pejić was born on 4 April 1969 in the village of Vukovar located in eastern Croatia. Pejić, who lived in the United Kingdom since 1999, was arrested in March 2008 at the airport in Belgrade when he wanted to bring a visit to his mother. He was charged with being involved in a horrific massacre that took place in November 1991. At that time, ethnic Croat prisoners were taken from the Vukovar hospital and subsequently brought to a pig farm in Ovčara, outside Vukovar. The prisoners were beaten, tortured and subsequently killed. Their bodies were buried in mass graves.

The Afghani Heshamuddin (or Hesamuddin) Hesam applied for political asylum in the Netherlands in 1996, but this was refused due to suspicion of his involvement in torture and war crimes during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. However, Hesam stayed in the Netherlands, and after investigations he was arrested in 2004. The Hague District Court convicted him for war crimes and torture committed by him as head of the military intelligence agency KhaD-e-Nezami (KhAD) and as superior for failing to prevent these crimes from being committed by his subordinates. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. Consequently, Hesam appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the previous courts had erred in law on several points. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, and held that Dutch courts had jurisdiction over the crime, that prosecution was admissible, that the crimes were not time-barred (as Dutch law excludes war crimes from becoming so), and that the convictions had been in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.