Search results

The Accused in the present case was Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister. On 4 September 1998, he had pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity (murder and extermination) and Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and later requested that his guilty plea be quashed and that he stand trial.

Before the Appeals Chamber, Kambanda argued that he had not been assigned the lawyer of his choice and that even when he finally did receive legal representation the assignment of the lawyer was influenced by the Prosecution. He also accused his defense counsel, Mr. Oliver Michael Inglis, of inadequate representation. In addition, he claimed that the Registry had organized his detention in facilities where he was isolated from other detainees and that he felt oppressed by these arrangements. The Prosecution pointed out that, for a while, Kambanda had refused any legal representation until the Registry told him that in the interest of justice he had to be represented by counsel. He subsequently requested the Registry, in writing, to assign Mr. Inglis as his defence counsel.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds advanced by the Accused and upheld his sentence.

Maher H.’s case is the first conviction in the Netherlands of a Dutch ‘foreign fighter’ returning from Syria. He was convicted on 1 December 2014 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by the District Court in The Hague. Although it was not exactly clear what Maher H. had done in Syria, the Court found enough evidence to determine, among other things, that he was guilty of preparing to commit terrorist crimes, including murder and manslaughter. The Court based its decision on the fact that he had actually been to Syria and participated in the armed conflict there as well as his support for the jihad. Factors such as Maher H.’s decision to join a jihadi armed group in Syria that aimed to destroy Syria’s political structure and establish an Islamic State were also considered relevant in showing his terrorist intent. The Court moreover convicted Maher H. of disseminating inciting videos, pictures and a document. However, he was acquitted of conspiring to commit a terrorist offence due to a lack of evidence. This decision was subsequently appealed by the defendant. 

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for illegally importing weapons and ammunition and complicity in war crimes committed by Charles Taylor’s regime. Kouwenhoven was not protected from prosecution by the Liberian Amnesty Scheme introduced by Charles Taylor’s government prior to Taylor’s resignation. The Court found that Kouwenhoven had deliberately provided the weapons used for the war crimes committed by the combined Liberian armed forces and therefore was an accomplice to these war crimes.

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. 

In June 1944, German occupation forces in Greece massacred more than 300 inhabitants of the village of Distomo and burnt the village to the ground, as reprisal for a partisan attack on German troops. In 1995, proceedings against Germany were instituted before the Greek courts, by over 250 relatives of the victims of the massacre, claiming compensation for loss of life and property. The Court of Livadia, Greece, held Germany liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the claimants. Germany appealed to the Greek Supreme Court, on the ground that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the Greek courts, on the basis of state immunity.

The Greek Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and rejected Germany’s claim of jurisdictional immunity. The Court denied German immunity applying Article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity, considered to correspond to customary international law. Moreover, the Court held that violation of peremptory norms would have the legal effect of implicitly waiving the jurisdictional immunity. It reasoned that torts in breach of rules of peremptory international law cannot be claimed to be acts jure imperii, concluding that Germany, by breaching jus cogens, had implicitly waived its immunity.