Search results

On 14 December 2006, following a plea agreement with the Prosecutor, Joseph Nzabirinda pleaded guilty to one count of murder as crime against humanity, for aiding and abetting the killing of Pierre Murara and Joseph Mazimpaka. The Trial Chamber accepted his guilty plea.

On 23 February 2007, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR sentenced the Accused to seven years' imprisonment. Nzabirinda was given credit for the time spent in detention since his arrest on 21 December 2001.

For the purpose of sentencing the Accused, the Chamber considered the fact that Nzabirinda was an educated person and the fact that he abused his moral authority over the youth and population of his commune as he was held in high esteem due to his positions as Youth Organiser and successful businessman as aggravating factors.

His guilty plea together with his public expression of remorse; his family situation as a married man with children; his good character prior to the events of 1994, the lack of criminal records; and his assistance either moral, financial or material, to certain Tutsi victims were considered mitigating factors. 

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux. In the present decision, the Court held that the SNCF were acting under the command of the German authorities and could not therefore be held responsible.

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that it was not competent to hear the appeal because the SNCF at the relevant time in question was a private company under the command of the German authorities and not exercising its own public authority. It is for the judicial order, and not the administrative one, to decide on the matter. 

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.