Search results

At the end of the Second World War, Tomoyuki Yamashita was a Commander in the Japanese Army serving in the Philippines. His troops were allegedly responsible for killing, torturing and raping thousands of civilians.

On 3 September 1945, Yamashita surrendered to the United States army. A US military commission tried him for violations of the laws of war. Yamashita was charged with having failed to perform his duties as an army commander to control the operations of his troops, thus “permitting them to commit” atrocities. He was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

Yamashita appealed at the US Supreme Court, because the military commission had lacked many procedural and evidential protections. The Supreme Court denied this appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that even if Yamashita did not know about the crimes committed by his subordinates, because of his position as a superior, he should have known. Yamashita was executed on 23 February 1946.

The outcome of this case has been much debated and criticised, because of the claimed lack of evidence and the ‘should have known’ criteria as described by the Supreme Court. 

On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty-one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.

The twenty-one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the District Court to hold that any individual is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, an inherent common law right, where they have been deprived of their liberty by an act of the United States Government and their detention is in violation of the United States Constitution. 

Hirute Abebe-Jira, EdgeGayehu Taye and Elizabeth Demissie were victims of the so-called “Red Terror” campaign in Ethiopia directed by Mengistu Haile Mariam during his dictatorship in the mid-1970s. The three women were questioned, beaten, threatened and ordered to undress during their illegal detention. The women brought a complaint against Kelbessa Negewo who personally supervised and participated in the interrogations and torture of the women. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found Kelbessa Negewo guilty and ordered him to pay $500,000 in damages to the three women. Negewo appealed. On 10 January 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.

Mikaeli Muhimana was the conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye Prefecture from 1990 through the genocide in 1994. On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted Muhimana of genocide and crimes against humanity for instigating, committing, and abetting numerous crimes between April and June 1994 at various locations in Kibuye Prefecture. The Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.

By majority the Appeals Chamber allowed only two of Muhimana’s sixteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence. The Appeals Chamber unanimously determined, however, that these errors did not invalidate any of Muhimana’s convictions and sentences for rape and murder given his numerous other crimes, including his role in five other killings and ten other rapes. The Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissed Muhimana’s remaining fourteen grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber confirmed the Accused’s convictions for genocide, rape and murder as crimes against humanity, as well as his sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his life. 

During the Rwandan genocide Athanase Seromba was a Catholic priest at Nyange parish, Kibuye Prefecture. On 13 December 2006, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted the Accused of aiding and abetting genocide and crimes against humanity against Tutsi refugees who had sought refuge at Nyange parish in order to escape attacks. The Trial Chamber also found that Seromba had assisted in the killing of Tutsi refugees as well as in the commission of acts causing serious bodily or mental harm. Thus, the Chamber convicted him of aiding and abetting the crimes of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.

Both the Accused and the Prosecution appealed the Trial judgment. On 12 March 2008, the Appeals Chamber overturned the conviction of the Accused for aiding and abetting genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and substituted convictions for committing genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his role in the destruction of the church in Nyange Parish causing the death of approximately 1,500-2,000 Tutsi refugees sheltering inside. The Chamber increased Seromba's sentence to life imprisonment.