Search results

On 16 March 2003 American Rachel Corrie, together with other International Solidarity Movement members, protested in the "Philadelphi Corridor" in the Rafiah area of the Gaza Strip against the demolition of Palestinian houses in the area. Two bulldozers and an Israel Defense Force (IDF) tank were present. When one of the bulldozers was driving towards a house in order to demolish it, Rachel stood in front of it to protect it and the inhabitants, meanwhile climbing the growing pile of dirt that was formed in front of the bulldozer. At a certain moment she slipped, fell and got stuck under the dirt and the bulldozer. After her fellow protesters made the bulldozer's operator aware of the situation, she was removed from underneath and taken to the hospital, where she died. 

Rachel's parents filed a lawsuit against Israel and the IDF for killing or negligently causing the death of their daughter. 

The Haifa District Court dismissed their claims, stating that the bulldozer's operator had never intended to kill Rachel and had also not been able to see her due to the "blind spot" in front of the bulldozer blade. Furthermore, it found, Rachel had taken the risk of entering the closed-off area and chose to climb the pile of dirt, thus putting herself in the dangerous situation. The Court concluded that she "was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity""; therefore, "the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action".

Following the death of Hutu Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994, the newly installed and Hutu dominated Interim Government adopted and implemented a policy to execute all Tutsi civilians and moderate Hutu. Some 800,000 people died in the course of the genocide.

The Appellants in the present case, Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza held the posts of Minister for Trade and Civil Service respectively in the Interim Government. They were convicted by Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Their conviction was based upon their role in the decision to remove the Tutsi prefect of Butare and their presence at the installation ceremony of the new prefect at which Interim President Sindikubwabo incited the massacre of Tutsi civilians in Butare. The Appeals Chamber overturned the decision of the Trial Chamber on the grounds that the Appellants did not possess the necessary intent for conspiracy and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. They were consequently acquitted of all charges and released.

Between April and July 1994, as much as 10% of the entire Rwandan civilian population was murdered in an ethnic conflict in which the Hutus sought to eliminate the Tutsis. At the same time, an armed conflict was fought between the Rwandan government army (FAR) and the armed forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The RPF were a rebel army primarily composed of descendants of Rwandan Tutsi who fled from Rwanda in preceding years.

The accused, Joseph Mpambara, fled Rwanda for The Netherlands. He was arrested and brought before the Dutch courts on charges of war crimes, torture and genocide. Although the Dutch courts deemed themselves without jurisdiction for genocide, Mpambara was initially convicted for torture. The Court of Appeal also found him guilty of war crimes and increased his 20 years' prison sentence to life imprisonment. Mpambara appealed at the Supreme Court, arguing that the previous judgment - especially the use of evidence from witnesses he could not examine and the issuance of a life sentence - was in violation of his fundamental rights (as found in the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR), namely his rights to a fair trial and to protection against inhumane treatment.

The Supreme Court found the grounds of appeal unfounded, dismissed Mpambara's appeal, and confirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment and sentence. 

Dual Australian-Serbian citizen “Captain Dragan” (Dragan Vasiljkovic, known in Australia as Daniel Snedden) was the first Australian citizen to be extradited from Australia. Croatia alleges that Snedden committed war crimes against prisoners of war and civilians in 1991 and 1993 whilst in command of Serbian paramilitary troops. 

In this case, the Court held that there was no reviewable error in the Minister’s determination under Section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Snedden should be extradited. While the determination process had taken a considerable time, delay did not lead to the expiration of the Minister’s power, nor had procedural unfairness been demonstrated.

The Court also held that because the Minister was not bound to consider Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention in making his determination, any errors in the interpretation of that Article would not vitiate the decision. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the interpretation.

This case highlights the desirability of domestic legislation implementing international agreements in jurisdictions such as Australia where international agreements entered into by the country are not automatically binding in the domestic legal system.

Two men, Mr. Nader Elhuzayel and Mr. Muhanad Badawi, were found guilty by a jury of conspiring to support the Islamic State on 21 June 2016 after earlier pleading not guilty. In particular, Mr. Elhuzayel, who was arrested prior to boarding a flight to Israel via Turkey at Los Angeles International Airport, was found to have encouraged others to support and join the Islamic State, and to have vowed to travel to Syria to fight for the terrorist group himself. Both were also convicted of financial fraud charges, the proceeds of which were used to fund the travel. A decision with regard to sentencing is anticipated later this year.