Search results

The municipality of Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked and taken under the control of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) in July 1995. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from women, children and the elderly, and, subsequently, murdered. The others were removed from Srebrenica by buses. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić played a crucial role in the commission of crimes by units of the VRS in the aftermath of the attacks on Srebrenica. Trial Chamber I convicted Blagojević of complicity in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Jokić was also found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber found that Trial Chamber I made an error in finding Blagojević guilty of complicity in genocide, since his knowledge of the forcible transfer operations, the mistreatments and the murders were not enough to establish that he knew of the genocidal intent (a special mental requirement for the crime of genocide) of the perpetrators. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber reversed his conviction for this crime and reduced his initial sentence of 18 years to 15 years of imprisonment.

All other grounds of Blagojević's appeal were rejected, together with the grounds adduced by Dragan Jokić and the Prosecution.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Trial Chamber II held that the elements required for the establishment of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions have not been met. Particularly, the Muslim victims were not in the hands of the party to the conflict of which they were not nationals, since the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were not an organ or agent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, the victims could not be seen as “protected persons” within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; as such, Trial Chamber II acquitted Tadić of all charges of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (persecutions and inhumane acts) and of violations of the laws or customs of war (cruel treatment). 

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. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. 

A Rwandan national who had lived in exile in Denmark under a false name was brought before a Danish court for committing genocide, namely heading a death squad and participating in the slaughter of 25,000 Tutsis in a Rwandan town in 1994.

The Danish Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the 1955 Genocide Act permitted Danish courts to prosecute persons accused of genocide, even where the genocide was not committed in Denmark and the Accused was not a Danish national. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of two lower courts and found that the charge of genocide in Rwanda by a Rwandan national could be raised before Danish courts indeed. The wording of the 1955 Genocide Act made genocide a criminal offense in Denmark, even if it was committed outside Denmark; moreover, Danish law did not require the accused to be a Danish national. It suffices that genocide is a crime both under Danish and Rwandan law: therefore, T. could be prosecuted before a Danish court

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. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, an US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgement, as it was confident that a judicial ruling in this case would not interfere with the duties and prerogatives of the executive branch.