Search results

Colonel Abdi Aden Magan, the defendant, was a member of the Marehan sub-clan of the Darod clan and held high positions (as Colonel and Chief) at the National Security Service (NSS) of Somalia. The plaintiff, Abukar Hassan Ahmed, was a human rights attorney and law professor at the Somali National University. He was detained at the NSS for approximately three months. During his detention, he suffered severe physical and psychological injuries.  Ahmed claimed that, as a Chief of NSS Investigations, Colonel Magan was responsible for ordering and participating in his interrogation and torture.

The Cambodian genocide (1975-1979) saw numerous serious crimes in violation of international law perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, in attempting to create a socialist government in Cambodia, took Cambodians from cities and forced their relocation into labor camps in the countryside. Physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease were prevalent. Elites, foreigners, and those considered enemies of the state were executed. It is estimated that almost 2 million people died.

Case 002/01 was limited to the crimes involved in the movement of the populations and executions at Tuol Po Chrey that occurred during the period of the Cambodian genocide. The case found defendants Nuon Chea, the Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea and Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea, guilty of crimes against humanity. The defendants were charged for the crimes of murder, political persecution, and other inhumane acts (forced transfer) for the two forced movements of Cambodians from the cities to rural areas and other related crimes. In addition, the defendants were found guilty of the added charges pertaining to the hundreds of executions of Khmer Republic soldiers and officials that occurred at Tuol Po Chrey, executed by Khmer Rouge forces.

Both defendants appealed.

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. 

Germany surrender World War II on 8 May 1945. The surrender mandated the cessation of military activities against the United States and its allies. The 27 Accused in the present case are all German nationals who were resided in China during the duration of the war. They were members of the German military intelligence agency, Bureau Ehrhardt, or the German propaganda agency, the German Information Bureau in China. Included amongst the accused were Ernst Woermann, German ambassador to occupied China, and Elgar von Randow, Counsellor of the Shanghai office of the German Embassy.

They were indicted by the Prosecutor of the United States Military Commission in China for war crimes, namely, for assisting the Japanese armed forces in the conduct of military activities against the United States and its allies. They were variously alleged to have collected and disseminated military information and distributed propaganda to the Japanese. The Military Commission convicted 21 of the 27 accused and handed down terms of imprisonment ranging from 5 years to life imprisonment for Lothar Eisentrager, the head of the Bureau Ehrhardt. The Military Commission was required to address a number of questions including the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court since the accused were all German nationals and the crimes were not committed on US territory, as well as whether the crimes with which the accused were charged amounted to war crimes under international law at the time of their commission. 

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack. They based their action on, most importantly, a paragraph of the US Code which allows aliens to file action against an alleged violation of the law of nations or a treaty. 

After the District Court had dismissed their case, the Court of Appeals had to assess the plaintiffs’ appeal against this Opinion. It turned out that the Appellate Panel disagreed on basically everything except on the final conclusion: the dismissal was affirmed. Judge Bork denied the existence of a right to sue altogether, stating that nor the law of nations, nor treaties provided the plaintiffs with this right. Judge Robb considered the questions to be answered in this case too political to be answered in a court. Matters regarding the international status of terrorist acts and sensitive matters of diplomacy should be left to politicians, in his opinion.