Search results

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).

The accused were all members of the Vukovar Territorial Defence force (TO) or of the volunteer unit called “Leva Supoderica”.

On 18 November 1991, members of the Croatian armed forces surrendered themselves to the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). As a result, they had to enjoy certain rights and protection under international law because they were prisoners of war. For instance, they had to be treated humanely, should not be beaten or killed. Nevertheless, they were taken to the Ovčara farm in the Vukovar municipality on 20 and 21 November 1991, where they were brutally beaten, injured, and killed by members of the TO force (including the accused). Approximately 200 Croatians were killed at the Ovčara farm.

Momčilo Perišić was born on 22 May 1944 in Koštunići, Serbia. During the period August 1993 until December 1998, he was chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army (VJ). The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague started criminal proceedings against him. Perišić was found guilty of planning and executing an attack on Srebrenica, at the time of the attack an area considered a so-called “safe area”, and for the killings of thousands of Muslims living there. In addition, Perišić was also found guilty for killing seven people and injuring approximately 200 people in Zagreb on 2 and 3 May 1995 with the help of the Army of Serbian Krajina (SVK). Perišić appealed against the decision. On 28 February 2013, the ICTY acquitted Perišić and subsequently released him.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands affirmed the strong approach to dual attribution taken by the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal. It found that it is possible for both the Netherlands and the UN to have effective control over the same wrongful conduct and that attributing this conduct to the Netherlands did not in any way determine whether the UN also exercised effective control over the Dutchbat troops (pp. 22-23, para. 3.11.2).

This case is important, as it marks the first time an individual government has been held to account for the conduct of its peacekeeping troops operating under a UN mandate. Liesbeth Zegveld, the Dutch lawyer who represented the victims, stated that “a U.N. flag doesn’t give...immunity as a state or as an individual soldier.” As a result of this judgment, two Bosnian families are now expected to receive damages from the Dutch state, and other cases may follow.

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55^th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit. Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Al Bihani’s appeal.

Al Bihani appealed the decision arguing that he was entitled to a rehearing. A seven-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the rehearing and upheld the decision that international law does not limit the President’s powers of detention and consequently al Bihani’s detention is lawful. However, all seven Circuit judges appended opinions demonstrating the importance of the question at hand and their separate reasoning.