Search results

On 7 June 2011, Aisha Gaddafi, the daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, filed a claim against NATO in Belgium. She argued that the NATO bombing in Tripoli on 30 April 2011 killed her daughter, her brother and other family members. Aisha Gaddafi asserted that the NATO forces specifically attacked the building that was not used in support of any military action. She claimed that the bombing constituted war crimes.

On 27 July 2011, the Belgium prosecutors announced that they decline to investigate the complaint on the basis of the absence of connection between the victims or the defendants and Belgium. 

Momčilo Perišić was a high-level military officer in the Yugoslav Army, which provided assistance both through sending weapons and through paying the salaries of the officers of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that of the Serbian Krajina (SVK). 

Three incidents were relevant for the purposes of his trial. The shelling and sniping in Sarajevo, the invasion of the town of Srebrenica, both perpetrated by the VRS, and the SVK's attacks in Zagreb.

The Chamber found Perišić guilty as aider and abettor to war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the incidents in Sarajevo and Srebrenica. 

The Chamber found him not guilty for his failure to punish the acts of the VRS in Sarajevo and Srebrenica due to the lack of his effective control over the conduct of the VRS. 

However, he was found guilty for the failure to punish the criminal behavior of the SVK, over the conduct of which he did possess effective control. Perišić was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’.

With the case back at the Court of Appeals, the question to be determined was the scope of the jurisdiction of the ATCA with regard to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and racial discrimination. The Court held that genocide and war crimes fall within the scope of the ATCA. These norms, according to the Court, are specific, universal and obligatory accepted and extend to corporations. However, the crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and the racial discrimination claims are not and, therefore, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims of genocide and war crimes.

Anatole Nsengiyumva served as Head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Army General Staff and Commander of the Gisenyi Operational Sector from June 1993 to July 1994. He was initially found guilty by Trial Chamber I of the ICTR on 18 December 2008 of genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts), and violence to life for ordering the killings in Gisenyi town on 7 April, Mudende University, Nyundo Parish and aiding and abetting the killings in Bisesero. The Chamber later reversed some of these convictions and it set aside his sentence to life imprisonment imposing on him a sentence of 15 years imprisonment instead.

Théoneste Bagosora was appointed directeur de cabinet for the Ministry of Defence in June 1992, where he served until July 1994. The Trial Chamber I convicted him for genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, other inhumane acts, and rapes), and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life and outrages upon personal dignity), for his participation in the events in Rwanda in 1994. The Appeals Chamber reversed some of these convictions, setting aside his sentence to life imprisonment and sentencing him to 35 years of imprisonment instead.

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.