Search results

The decision is the first of its kind in France to hold accountable the French State and the national railway company, the SNCF, for complicity in the deportation of Jewish individuals during World War II. The case was brought by the Lipietz family who sought damages for the prejudice they suffered as a result of being deported from the city of Pau in southern France to the internment camp at Drancy, near Paris in 1944. They argued that the State and the SNCF were responsible because their deportation was conducted with the assistance of the SNCF and with the approval of the Home Secretary.

The Administrative Tribunal of Toulouse held that both the French state and the SNCF were complicit in the deportation of the claimants, having committed egregious errors and were accordingly fined a total of 62,000 Euros. 

After the fall of the Cambodian government in 1975, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Pol Pot, came to power and renamed the state the Democratic Kampuchea. An armed conflict broke out with Vietnam, which lasted until 1979. From 1975 until 1979, Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea sought to establish a revolutionary state and introduced a policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies, a form of physical and psychological destruction that consisted of arbitrary detention, torture and execution. This policy was implemented at a number of interrogation centres, one of which was S21. Duch, a former mathematics teacher, was the Chairman of S21 responsible for extracting confessions and information, and teaching interrogation techniques.

In the first ever judgment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Trial Chamber convicted Duch of multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, minus five years as a result of his unlawful detention by the Cambodian Military Court for eight years prior to his transfer to the ECCC. This was also the first case before an international tribunal to allow victims of the crimes to participate in proceedings as civil parties and claim reparations for the harm they have suffered. 

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that it was not competent to hear the appeal because the SNCF at the relevant time in question was a private company under the command of the German authorities and not exercising its own public authority. It is for the judicial order, and not the administrative one, to decide on the matter. 

The claimant’s father was a French Jew who was interned in France and deported to a concentration camp by the Vichy regime during World War II. The claimant brought proceedings for reparations before the Administrative Tribunal of Paris alleging that the French State and the French railway company that facilitated the transfer and deportation, the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais (SNCF) was at fault.

The case was transferred to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative body in France, for advice. The Conseil d’Etat ruled that the acts of the French State, which contributed to the deportation of persons considered as Jews by the Vichy regime, constituted faults for which its responsibility was engaged. The Advice was the first time that the Conseil had ruled that reparation of such exceptional suffering could not be restricted to financial measures: they implied a solemn acknowledgement of the collective prejudice suffered by those persons, because of the role the French State played in their deportation, quoting the 1964 law suppressing time limitation on crimes against humanity, or the 1995 Presidential statement acknowledging the responsibility of the French State.

The Advice is to be eminently helpful for the 400 similar cases currently pending before French administrative courts. 

Zijad Kurtović, a commander of a military police platoon of the Bosnian army, was accused of involvement in war crimes committed during the war between Croatia and Bosnia (1992-1995). More specifically, he was charged with torturing and otherwise inflicting serious mental and physical harm to Croatian civilians and prisoners of war in a Roman Catholic church in October 1993, by beating them, forcing them to eat pages from the Bible, using and ordering others to use Croatian civilians and prisoners of war as human shields on the frontlines, and with forcing two detained HVO soldiers to perform an oral sexual intercourse. In first instance, Kurtović was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.

Kurtović appealed on several grounds, arguing that the first instance Panel had erred in law (using the wrong law) and in fact (wrongly established certain facts). The prosecution also appealed against the sentence, which was, in its view, too lenient. The Appellate Panel partly agreed with Kurtović where it concerned the classification of the crimes. It could not be established with certainty which victims had been combatants; however, as it was evident that all detained persons were entitled to protection under common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and that they were to be qualified (as is usual under the law of war in case of doubt) as civilians. However, the findings on the facts remained further unchanged. Therefore, the Appellate Panel amended the conviction to only include war crimes against civilians and the wanton destruction of religious monuments. The prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed; the 11-year prison sentence was upheld.