Search results

The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK. 

On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I issued its judgment. It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić appealed.

The Appeals Chamber rejected his grounds of appeal: the Trial Chamber had given due consideration to the facts and circumstances, including the mitigating and aggravating factors, and since it is not bound by any agreement between parties, it did not err in not following the requested sentence. The fact that one mitigating factor (the post-conflic efforts to further peace) were wrongly disregarded, did not make the overall sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment unfair

Miroslav Deronjić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the village of Glogova in Bosnia and Herzegovina in May 1992. The attack resulted in the deaths of Bosnian Muslims and the destruction of their properties and homes. Deronjić pleaded guilty to the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity and, subsequently, Trial Chamber II found him guilty. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the imposed sentence, adducing four grounds of appeal.

First, he argued that Trial Chamber II reached its conclusions on the basis of evidence that was not among the documents agreed upon with the Prosecution. Furthermore, he asserted that Trial Chamber II erroneously found that it was not bound to apply a more lenient penalty than the national laws of the former Yugoslavia would envisage. The Appeals Chamber concluded that those domestic laws do not bind the Tribunal and thus his argument could not be upheld. In his last two grounds of appeal, Deronjić argued that Trial Chamber II made errors in the assessment of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Appeals Chamber found, however, no errors.

As a result, all four grounds of appeal were dismissed and the sentence of 10 years of imprisonment was upheld.

Between April and July 1993 the village of Ahmići (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and its surroundings were subjected to an ethnic cleansing targeting the Muslim population. Miroslav Bralo, also known as “Cicko”, actively participated in these attacks as a member of a unit of the Croatian Defence Council. He pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity and war crimes and Trial Chamber III, subsequently, found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment.

Bralo appealed the sentencing judgment of 7 December 2005, challenging Trial Chamber III's assessment of the factors which guided it in determining the final sentence.

Bralo adduced three grounds of appeal. In the first one he argued that Trial Chamber III made an error when it classified certain factors as irrelevant to his sentence. The second ground challenged the Chamber's assessment of the factors which it did take into consideration as relevant for Bralo's sentence. In the last ground, Bralo claimed that Trial Chamber III did not reduce his sentence adequately, considering the volume and relevance of the mitigating circumstances.

The Appeals Chamber did not find any error in the findings of Trial Chamber III and dismissed all three grounds of Bralo's appeal. Subsequently, his sentence of 20 years was affirmed.

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc.

On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request on both aspects raised by it. First, the Court of Appeals found that the scope of the record that will be reviewed must include all the Government Information. Second, the extent to which the Government may withhold information from the detainee’s counsel should not affect the burden vested upon the Government of producing the requested Government Information. 

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, where the Supreme Court found that certain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) are unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals raised the question of whether it still has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the detainees’ petitions. The Court of Appeal found that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, since the provisions of the DTA relating to the elimination of the habeas corpus rights (the right to challenge the legality of one’s detention) have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the detainees’ petition was dismissed.