Search results

In the second instance verdict of the Gojko Janković case, the Appellate Panel upheld the defence appeal only in the part of the legal qualification of the acts constituting crimes against humanity. It refused all of the other points of appeal entered by the defence, including the modification of the long term imprisonment of 34 years.

The case of Gojko Janković was the second case referred by the ICTY to the Court of BiH for further processing.

Veiz Bjelić was born on 12 September 1949 in Vlasenica. In the period from June 1992 to 26 January 1993, he was a prison guard in the “Štala” prison where Serb civilians and members of the armed forces who no longer participated in the fighting, were detained. During that time, Bjelić repeatedly raped one female person and threatened to kill her if she would tell it to someone. He also led soldiers of the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enter the prison, where they subsequently abused Serb civilians both physically and mentally.

Bjelić was found guilty on 28 March 2003 and was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

Ali Mahmud Ali Shafi is a Palestinian national who was spying for Israel until he moved to Israel in 1994. On his return to Palestine in 2001, he was arrested by Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers and subsequently brought to a PA security building where he was detained for several months. During that period, he was severely beaten, left without any clothes, and was not permitted to take a bath. In 2002, Ali Shafi was forced to sign a confession which was used as the basis for his conviction of killing the Palestinian leader Raed al Karmi and for spying for Israel. He was sentenced to death. However, in March 2002, Ali Shafi escaped.

In 2009, Ali Shafi brought a claim in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the PA and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The District Court dismissed the complaint. On 14 June 2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed the decision because claims can only be brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against state actors. The defendants in this case were no state actors and therefore appellants failed to state a claim within the jurisdiction conferred by the ATS.

During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nenand Tanasković was a reserve police officer in Višegrad, where Serbs were conducting a widespread and systematic attack against the Muslim citizens of this municipality. The Trial Panel at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment for his role in this attack. Tanasković brought forward several grounds for appeal, for example stating that his sentence was solely based on testimonies of (unreliable) witnesses. Also, he argued that the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be applied to him, as this Code did not exist in 1992, when the attack took place. The Appellate Panel stated that the Trial Panel had been accurate in assessing the evidence and establishing the facts. Also, it stated that the Criminal Code could be applied, as international law, which was applicable in 1992, also prohibits crimes against humanity.

The Trial Panel had blamed Tanasković for not showing remorse during the trial. The Appellate Panel considered this to be unfair. Showing remorse could be seen as a plea of guilt, the Appellate Panel reasoned, and nobody is obliged to plead guilty. The sentence was modified to eight years of imprisonment.

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.