Search results

On 12 August 2001 the village of Ljuboten, located in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), was attacked. The police killed ethnic Albanians and set fire to homes in the village. Ljube Boškoski was the Minister of the Interior of the FYROM while Johan Tarčulovski was a police officer. For their role and participation in these events, they were brought before Trial Chamber II of the ICTY. While Trial Chamber II acquitted Boškoski of the charges, it did find Tarčulovski guilty of war crimes.

Tarčulovski presented seven grounds of appeal to the Appeals Chamber, arguing that Trial Chamber II made incorrect interpretations of the law with regard to the elements of war crimes, his individual criminal responsibility and in considering evidence.

The Prosecution appealed the acquittal of Boškoski on the ground that he should have been held responsible for his failure to punish his subordinates for committing the crimes at Ljuboten.

However, the Appeals Chamber disagreed with both the Accused and the Prosecution; Tarčulovski's sentencing was upheld, and so was Boškoski's acquital.

The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes in relation to the Croatian war of independence.

Glavaš has denied any wrongdoing and protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged the Appellate Division Panel’s findings were based on “political, not legal statements.”

In September 2007, 14 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20 wounded by employees of Blackwater, a private security company hired by the US to protect its government employees. They stated that it was self-defence, but were charged with manslaughter.

They alleged they made statements under pressure (as they were threatened to be fired if they would not do so). Under US law, these statements are ‘compelled’ and can therefore not be used in criminal proceedings. As these statements appeared in the press, both the prosecution team and witnesses were influenced by them. Therefore, the Court ruled, the rights of the defendants have been inexcusably breached. It dismissed the charges against the defendants.

The Court of Appeals did not agree and stated that the District Court should have been more specific when it branded the evidence against the defendants as ‘tainted’. It held that, for example, witness statements should have been subjected to a part by part examination to determine which parts were tainted. These statements should not have been ‘thrown out’ entirely, according to the Court of Appeals. 

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia granted the petition and ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US the government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The US Government appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010. The Court of Appeals considered that the intelligence report, which stood as central evidence against Latif, was entitled to a presumption of regularity and the inconsistencies of the Report are likely the result of imperfect translations. The Court of Appeal also found inconsistencies in Latif’s account of the events. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed the granted habeas corpus petition.

The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had planned a visit to the Netherlands from 6 to 8 October 2010. The government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) filed a complaint in the Netherlands and requested the Indonesian President to be arrested upon arrival in the Netherlands, and furthermore, that he would be prosecuted for human rights violations committed against Moluccan detainees.

On 14 October 2010, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the case because President Yudhoyono as head of state could not be prosecuted (head of state immunity).

On 22 November 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.