Search results

Eight inhabitants of the Northern Territory (Australia) who had been taken from their families between 1925 and 1944 under the Aboriginals Ordinance of 1918 (which allowed the forced removal of children of mixed Aboriginal descent), and a mother, Rose Napangardi McClary, whose child had been taken from her under the same law, sought a declaration that the Ordinance was unconstitutional. They instituted legal proceedings in 1995. In July 1997, the High Court rejected all their arguments and held that the Ordinance was not unconstitutional.

On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to the count of murder as a crime against humanity. Trial Chamber I sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment.

The Appeals Chamber rejected Erdemović’s grounds in which he asked for his acquittal or in the alternative, for the revision of his sentence. 

The Appeals Chamber, acting on its own initiative, found that duress does not afford a complete defence to a soldier who is charged with a crime against humanity and/or a war crime. Therefore, the guilty plea of Erdemović was not equivocal. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber found that the guilty plea was also not informed. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber decided that the case must be remitted to a Trial Chamber and Erdemović be allowed to replead in full awareness of the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of such a plea.

During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.

Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.

Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.

The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. Concerning the liability of the United States, the Court found that the issue was of such important nature that it remanded the question and initiated an en banc (full court) hearing to decide on it.