Search results

Prior to becoming President of the greater Kigali branch of the Mouvement Révolutionnaire National pour la Démocratie er le Développement (MRND) political party in 1993, the Accused, Laurent Semanza, served as Bourgmestre (mayor) of Bicumbi commune. On 15 May 2003, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found him guilty of complicity in genocide, extermination, torture and murder as crimes against humanity. Semanza submitted 22 grounds of appeal against his convictions. The Appeals Chamber dismissed his argument that he should be acquitted of all charges because the Trial Chamber was biased against him.

Instead, the Appeals Chamber accepted the Prosecutor’s argument and convicted Semanza for ordering, rather than aiding and abetting, the massacre of Tutsis at Musha church. Because the Accused had more serious culpability for the crimes at the church, the Appeals Chamber increased his sentence from 15 to 25 years  on Counts 7 and 13 of the indictment. More specifically, the Chamber affirmed the conviction for genocide charges and increased his sentence by 10 years for ordering the murder, torture and rape of Tutsi civilians at the church. The Appeals Chamber also reversed the Trial Chamber’s acquittal on the charges of serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. Semanza was sentenced to a total of 35 years imprisonment. 

François Karera was officially appointed the prefect of Kigali-Rural prefecture on or around 17 April 1994 and held that position until mid-July 1994. Previously he was a sub-prefect at Kigali-Rural prefecture. From 1975 to 1990, Karera had been mayor of Nyarugenge urban commune, an administrative unit which was later replaced by Kigali-Ville prefecture. During a certain period, he was also president of the MRND party in Nyarugenge commune.

In mid-April 1994, Hutu militiamen and soldiers arrived in Ntarama sector and attacked the Tutsi refugees who were gathered at Ntarama Church, killing several hundreds of Tutsis. Karera was present and encouraged the attackers. In April and May 1994, Tutsis had also been killed in Rushashi commune in Kigali-Rural prefecture and in Nyamirambo sector in Nyarugenge commune, mainly at roadblocks. Karera ordered or instigated these acts. He was found guilty of genocide and extermination and murder as crimes against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced Karera to life imprisonment. 

In July 1995, the safe haven of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces resulting in the deaths of between 8 000 and 10 000 individuals. Members of the Dutch battalion who were responsible for the safeguarding of the enclave were completely overrun by the forces of General Mladic.

In 2007, a civil action was filed before the District Court of The Hague by 10 women whose family members died in the genocide as well the Mothers of Srebrenica, a Dutch association representing 6 000 survivors. They are demanding compensation from the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by alleging that both are responsible for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica. In the present decision, the District Court of The Hague determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the United Nations enjoyed absolute immunity from proceedings. 

After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.

These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. In first instance, the Court acquitted Stevanovic. After hearing several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about it and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven.

The Prosecutor appealed the decision, arguing that the Court had wrongly considered certain facts (error in fact) and that it had wrongly abstained from labelling certain conduct - namely, Stevanovic's participation in securing the road - as criminal (error in law). However, the Appellate Panel disagreed, dismissed the appeal and affirmed Stevanovic's acquittal.