Search results

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations. 

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Mizanur Rahman were charged with inviting support for the Islamic State, which is designated as a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom. Both men are well-known speakers who have publicly supported the Islamic State, including by attending protests at which Islamic State banners were displayed.

While Choudary and Rahman’s speeches did not explicitly invite violence, the Court found them to be clear statements of support for the Islamic State, based on the common-sense meaning of the word “support.” According to the Court, “support” is not limited only to assistance that is practical or tangible, but also extends to support in the form of endorsement of approval of a proscribed organisation.

Finally, the Court addressed the appellants’ contention that the law in question violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court found the right to freedom of expression to be not absolute, specifically when the law prescribes the criminalization of the conduct and its purpose is to respond to issues such as national security which are listed in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić case before the ICTY concerned events which occurred from October 1991 to November 1995 in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. These conflicts have been estimated to be the cause of a death toll of approximately 100,000 people, and to over 2,000,000 people being displaced.The victims in this case were the ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats residing in the targeted municipalities. The crimes in question (such as murder) were committed by Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs, as per orders issued by government leaders, one of whom was Mr. Karadžić. 

Mr. Karadžić was the President of the Republika Srpska (RS) and Supreme Commander of the RS armed forces during the conflicts. In his leadership position, Mr. Karadžić, together with other leaders, aimed to create an ethnically pure Bosnian Serb State by territorially dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Karadžić’s leadership position leveraged his power in ordering the RS armed forces and facilitating the commission of crimes against humanity, genocide, and violations of rules and customs of war. Therefore, Mr. Karadžić was indicted by the ICTY of 11 counts of crimes, including crimes against humanity, violations of rules and customs of war, and genocide. On 24 March 2016, Mr. Karadžić was found guilty of most of the counts and acquitted of one genocide count. As a result, Mr. Karadžić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.

In April 2016, Mr. Junead Khan was convicted by a jury verdict of attempting to travel to join terrorist organisation ISIL in Syria and of plotting to attack US personnel on military bases in the UK. The evidence showed that Mr. Khan had obtained bomb making instructions, a manual on life in ISIL and that he was attempting to acquire a marine combat knife. He had also been in contact with a jihadi fighter in Syria who offered him the addresses of soldiers to attack. He was convicted with his uncle, Shazib Khan, and was sentenced in May 2016 to life imprisonment. 

Mr. Shazib Khan was found guilty by a jury verdict for planning to travel to Syria and join Islamic State in Levant, a terrorist organisation. In preparation for the travel, Mr. Khan had purchased items for use in Syria and he had also expressed his desire for martyrdom to others who had previously joined ISIL. His case was heard alongside that of his older nephew, Mr. Junead Khan, and he was later sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.