Search results

The armed conflict in Sierra Leone, from 1991 until 2002, opposed members of the Revolutionary United Front and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council to Civil Defense Forces, loyal to the ousted President Kabbah. The hostilities were characterised by brutality as civilians and peacekeepers were targeted.

Sesay, Kallon and Gbao were all high-ranking members of the RUF, who were convicted by Trial Chamber I for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sesay received a sentence of 52 years’ imprisonment, Kallon 40 years and Gbao 25 years. On appeal, the Appeals Chamber upheld the sentences despite complaints about their length and the incorrect approach of the Trial Chamber. In particular, the Appeals Chamber made some important findings as to the law applicable for defining a common plan in a joint criminal enterprise and the requirements for the crime of hostage taking. 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a Nigerian national who was accused of attempting to set off an explosive device on a plane travelling from Amsterdam (the Netherlands) to Detroit, Michigan (the United States of America) on 25 December 2009. 

In an indictment filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, prosecutors charged Abdulmutallab with eight counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. Abdulmatallab pleaded guilty on 21 October 2011 to all counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. On 16 February 2012, the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for four counts (including conspiracy to commit terrorism), and an additional 50 years for the remaining counts.

From April 1975 to January 1979 the Khmer Rouge committed numerous crimes to create their socialist state. Case 002/02 was limited to prosecuting the crimes that occurred at security centers and worksites, including the executions of enemies and elites, forced marriages, and other inhumane treatment. In addition, the case included the genocide of the Vietnamese, who were fighting the Khmer Rouge forces, and the Cham peoples, who were persecuted for their religious and ethnic identity.

On 16 November 2018 the Trial Chamber found Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan guilty of crimes against humanity (including rape, forced marriage, and murder), grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide of the Vietnamese. The Chamber also convicted Nuon Chea of the genocide of the Cham peoples.

The accused were found guilty based on their leadership roles within the Communist Party of Kampuchea; Khieu Samphan had various roles, including President of the State Presidium, and Nuon Chea was the Deputy Secretary of the party. The Trial Chamber ruled that the accused failed to prevent and punish the crimes that occurred, even though they knew or had reason to know the crimes were being carried out.

Both accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

As part of an operation to prevent attacks on Israeli citizens, the IDF Military Commander in the West Bank issued several Orders to allow the IDF to detain groups of people for periods up to 18 days without the possibility to appeal to a judge or to consult legal counsel.

The Supreme Court held that the military commander is allowed to detain persons if they are considered to be dangerous to the security, but that this authority should be balanced against the liberty of the individual. The Military Commander’s orders allowed for detainees to be held for a minimum of 12 days without judicial reviews and this was considered by the Court to be illegal. Also, the Court stated that investigations should start in an earlier phase of detention. However, the Court also stated that the IDF could prohibit a detainee for meeting with his lawyer because of security considerations. All in all, the Court struck down the disputed orders. 

As part of the operation to erect a wall in the West Bank, Israel constructed a wall around the Alfei Menashe settlement between 2002 and 2003. This wall also circumscribed five Palestinian villages, the residents of which filed a petition to have the wall removed.

The Supreme Court stated that the military commander of the West Bank had the authority to decide on the erection of a fence, but only if this is necessary for security or military considerations. Also, these security or military considerations had to be proportionate to the infringement on the rights of the Palestinians. In this case, the effects of the wall on everyday life of the residents of the Palestinian villages were so severe that alternatives should have been considered. This had not been the case, the Court stated. Therefore, it ordered the respondents to consider alternatives.