Search results

Grégoire Ndahimana was Mayor of Kivumu commune (community)in Rwanda in April 1994. Following the death of President Habyarimana, a common plan was realised in Kivumu commune. The purpose of this plan was to exterminate the Tutsis who lived there.

After the President’s death, one to two thousand Tutsi civilians sought refuge at Nyange parish. Only a very small number of these civilians survived the attacks on the parish that occurred on 15 and 16 April 1994.

The Prosecutor of the ICTR charged Ndahimana with genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his role in the massacres of Tutsis that took place in Kivumu commune over ten days from 6 April 1994 to 16 April 1994. He was found guilty of genocide and extermination by aiding and abetting as well as by virtue of his command responsibility over the communal police. Ndahimana was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.  

Both the Prosecution and the Defence have lodged appeals against the judgment.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 

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.

The Arusha Accords brought an end to the civil war in Rwanda that had opposed the government to the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front. They introduced a transitional multi-party government with Habyarimana of the Mouvement Républicain National pour la Démocratie et le Développement (MRND) as its President. Following the death of the president on 6 April 1994, however, hostilities broke out once more.

The MRND, with the Accused Ngirumpatse as its President and his co-Accused Karemera as its Vice President proceeded to introduce and implement measures designed to target the Tutsi population. They actively supported the Interahamwe, a civilian militia that acted as the youth wing of the MRND, and which was resopnsible for the mass killing as well as the rape and sexual assault of countless Tutsi women. The Accused interfered with the territorial administration in Rwanda, warning local officials to support the Hutu policy and replacing any who opposed the killing of Tutsis. They travelled across governemnt controlled parts of Rwanda and espoused their anti-Tutsi policy with a view to inciting more killings.

By a judgment of 2 February 2012, Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found both Accused guilty of genocide, conspiracy to commit the same, direct and public incitement of the same, rape and extermination as crimes against humanity and the war crime of killing. They were both sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment comes after 7 years of trial, the withdrawal of three judges, the death of one co-Accused and the controversial decision taking judicial notice that a genocide occurred in Rwanda in 1994, thereby alleviating the Prosecution of having to introduce evidence in order to prove the allegation beyond a reasoinable doubt.

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes.