Search results

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.

In October 2012 a group of Somali pirates boarded the Iranian dhow "Mohsen" and took the Iranian and Pakistani crewmembers hostage. They were noted by Dutch navy vessel HNLMS Rotterdam (part of NATO's Ocean Shield anti-piracy operation). When Navy marines approached the ship in inflatable boats (RHIBs) they came under fire from both the Mohsen and ashore. The Rotterdam responded, causing the Mohsen to catch fire, after which it sank. 25 people were rescued out of the water, while at least one pirate died during the exchange of fire.

Of the 25 rescued people, at least four were accused of piracy. They were put on separate trials in the Netherlands and charged with piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter.

In the current case, accused V15 was ultimately acquitted of the piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter charges due to a significant lack of evidence. However, since it was clear that armed violence against the Navy personnel had occurred and taking into consideration that V15 did carry a weapon and had cooperated with the shooters, he was found guilty of complicity in the use of (armed) violence against persons aboard a ship. Considering the grave nature of shooting at unprotected persons in inflatable boats an aggravating factor and weighing this against the harsh living conditions in Somalia and the dire personal situation of V15, the Court sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment.

Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, Ziyad Yaghi, and Hysen Sherifi are three Americans charged with conspiring to engage in various terrorist activities. The district court convicted them of various counts of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism abroad. Sherifi was also convicted of conspiring to kill members of the uniformed services within the United States.

The defendants had performed various overt acts in furtherance of a terrorist conspiracy, including travelling to the Middle East, participating in weapons trainings and creating a weapons arsenal, raising money for violent jihadist efforts, and posting about their extremist beliefs on social media.

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appellants challenged their convictions on constitutional and evidentiary grounds. They first argued that the convictions were based on constitutionally protected speech (First Amendment). They also made various evidentiary challenges, including a challenge to the admissibility of lay and expert witness testimony, as well as social media videos and videos collected from defendant’s cell phone demonstrating weapon training. Finally, they challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction.

The Court dismissed all of the appellant’s challenges and upheld the district court’s conviction on all of the charges.

Between 1999 and 2003, Ituri  (Democratic Republic of Congo - DRC) was the scene of a violent conflict between the Lendu, Ngiti and Hema ethnic groups. The Hema-dominated Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) seized control of Bunia, the district capital, in August 2002. On the road between Bunia and the border with Uganda lies the strategically important town of Bogoro, with a UPC military camp in the middle of the town. On 24 February 2003 a Ngiti militia attacked Bogoro, aiming to drive out or eliminate the UPC camp as well as the Hema population. Numerous civilians were murdered and/or raped and the town was partly destroyed.

During this time, Germain Katanga was President of the Ngiti militia and Commander or Chief of Aveba. As such, he formally exercised authority over the attackers; therefore he was indicted by the ICC for participating in the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Bogoro attack.

The Trial Chamber found that Katanga, while formally President, did not have full operational command over all fighting forces and commanders. Therefore he was acquitted of some of the crimes committed. However, since he had provided indispensable logistical aid (providing arms and transportation), he had enabled the militia to commit the crimes. He knew of their intent and intentionally contributed to the perpetration of the crimes; as such, the Chamber found him guilty, as accessory, of the crime against humanity of murder and the war crimes of murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging. 

On 23 May 2014, the Court sentenced Katanga to 12 years' imprisonment with credit for time served in the ICC's detention centre, approximately 7 years.

The current judgment is one out of nine in a piracy case before the Dutch courts. By the end of 2010, a number of Somali men in a skiff took over the Iranian dhow 'Feddah' somewhere near the Gulf of Aden, in order to use it as base of operations to further hijack bigger ships at open sea. Unfortunately for them, Dutch Navy vessel HMS Tromp was in the neighbourhood as part of NATO's anti-piracy operation Ocean Shield. When Navy marines approached the apparently suspicious Feddah in two inflatable boats, several pirates started firing their machine guns and RPG's at them. An exchange of fire ensued, killing two pirates and injuring another six. In total, sixteen were captured, of whom seven were released soon after. Nine others, including V01, were prosecuted for piracy (in the form of sea robbery) and unlawfully attacking Navy personnel.

In first instance, V01 and the other suspects were acquitted from the charges of attemped murder/manslaughter of Navy personnel, since it could not be established who had shot, while it had become clear that certain suspects had intentionally refrained from shooting as they wanted no trouble with the Navy. However, by intentionally and knowingly cooperating to take over the Feddah and aiming to use it to hijack other ships, the suspects had indeed committed acts of piracy and were sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment. 

The judgment and sentence were confirmed in appeal. However, the Court of Appeal emphasised the extraordinary nature of anti-piracy operations: because of their inherently military nature, certain irreparable formal defects were given no (substantial) consequences in the current case, where the outcome may have been different in a 'regular' case.