Search results

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 Rwandan government suspects the Jean-Claude Iyamuremye, a Rwandan national residing in the Netherlands, of having taken part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide as Interahamwe militia leader. He is indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 25 September 2013, Rwandan authorities issued an extradition request with the Netherlands. The accused challenged the request, arguing that war crimes were not prohibited as such in Rwandan law in 1994, and that therefore he cannot be extradited. He also alleged that Rwanda would not provide him with a fair trial; if he were to be extradited, the Netherlands would violate their obligations forthcoming from the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court dismisses both arguments. Since genocide was prohibited by both Rwandan and Dutch law in 1994, the double criminality requirement has already been fulfilled. And concerning fair trial rights, the Court found that it was obliged to apply a marginal test, since the Netherlands and Rwanda are both parties to the Genocide Convention and, thus, have to trust each other on fulfilling their respective treaty obligations. It ruled that extradition would not lead to a flagrant denial of a fair trial; hence the Court ruled the extradition request admissible.

During the fighting between Indonesia and Malaysia, twelve Malaysian Chinese members of the Indonesian Air Force who were heavily armed, infiltrated into Malaysia (ten by parachute and two by boat). They were arrested, convicted pursuant to Malaysian law and sentenced to death. The Federal Court of Malaysia held that two members were protected pursuant to international law, in particular the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1949. On appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that they were not protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention because they were nationals of Malaysia (the state that detained them). Therefore, they could be prosecuted under national law for offences against that law.

Momčilo Mandić, who was Assistant Minister of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in April 1996, was indicted before the Court of BiH in 2006 on allegations of involvement in war crimes against civilians and crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflicts that broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, and which lasted until 1995. Mandić was accused of directing the attack against the Training Centre for Personnel of the BiH Ministry of Interior – one of the events that sparked the war – and of ordering (or at least failing to take reasonable measures against) subordinates to detain and mistreat several non-Serb civilians.

Mandić was acquitted by the Court in first instance, as it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had been involved in these acts, and neither could it be established that he was, indeed, a superior with the possibility to either order such acts to be committed or to take measures against subordinates who were about to or had committed the acts. The prosecution appealed, but to no avail; on 1 September 2009, the Appellate Panel upheld the acquittal.

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.