Search results

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing, on behalf of five individuals from Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, Italy and Egypt. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been victims of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme – covert operations whereby individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism were secretly detained, transferred all over the world by “black flights” and taken to “black sites” or secret prisons where they were tortured for years. The role of Jeppesen – a company specialised in the aviation sector, providing navigational information, crew and fleet management solutions, and other services in the sector – in this practice was, allegedly, that the company facilitated the CIA’s black flights, inter alia,by providing airports with false flight plans to conceal all information about the aircrafts.

In first instance, after the U.S. government intervened in the case on the side of Jeppesen, the claim was dismissed immediately as the California District Court found that the state secret doctrine prevented it from reviewing the case. This judgment was partly revoked in appeal when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that defendants had not properly proven that the state secret doctrine was applicable; the case was remanded for rehearing, though. Ultimately, in its 6-5 majority decision of 8 September 2010, the full bench of the Appeals Court ruled that in the current case the state secret doctrine indeed applied, concluding that ruling in the case would be impossible due to substantial information being “privileged” or non-disclosable. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber. Trial Chamber IIbis sentenced Tadić to 25 years of imprisonment. Tadić appealed against both the sentencing judgment of Trial Chamber II as well as that of Trial Chamber IIbis.

The Appeals Chamber found that Trial Chamber II erred when it ordered that the term of the sentence start after a final determination of an appeal as well as when it did not give credit for the time Tadić spent in custody in Germany.

The Appeals Chamber also upheld Tadić’s argument that crimes against humanity do not attract higher sentence than war crimes. The Appeals Chamber revised the sentence imposed by Trial Chamber IIbis to 20 years of imprisonment.

Tihomir Blaškić was brought before the ICTY for his role as Commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Council during the events that took place in the area of Lašva Valley (Bosnia and Herzegovina) between May 1992 and January 1994. During this time, the Croatian forces attacked several municipalities in the area of Lašva Valley (Bosnia and Herzegovina). As a result of the attack, hundreds of Bosnian Muslim civilians were killed, arrested, detained, mistreated or forced to leave their homes.

Trial Chamber I found that Tihomir Blaškić ordered a significant number of attacks and did not take measures to prevent or punish the crimes that were committed by his subordinates. Therefore, Trial Chamber I found him responsible for the crimes against humanity and war crimes occurred during those attacks. 

Furthermore, Blaškić was found guilty of inhuman and cruel treatment (as crimes against humanity) for the violence at the detention centres, for the forcing of detainees to dig trenches, for the taking of hostages, and for the use of human shields. 

Blaškić was sentenced to 45 years of imprisonment.

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those believed to be independence supporters. These crimes intensified in the wake of the referendum conducted in August 1999 in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence.

It was in the wake of this referendum that members of the Team Pancasila Atsabe militia, including the Accused Agustinho Da Costa, were ordered to locate and kill a known independence supporter who was working for the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). Their initial search being unsuccessful, they located the victim on the following day and proceeded to beat him with rocks and fire multiple shots until he died. His daughter witnesses the entire incident.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Da Costa for his role in the murder and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The Panel was not persuaded by Da Costa’s line of defence that held that he was acting under duress, as he could have resisted joining the militia and could have escaped up until the moment of the attack.

The case encompasses the persecution of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs in 37 municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, and the role played by Biljana Plavšić therein, as a high level political figure. On 2 October 2002, Plavšić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and the Trial Chamber found him guilty accordingly. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crimes as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, the Trial Chamber attached weight to the massive scope and extent of the persecutions; the numbers killed, deported and forcibly expelled; the grossly inhumane treatment of detainees; and the scope of the wanton destruction of property and religious buildings. 

Although the Trial Chamber accepted Biljana Plavšić’s superior position as an aggravating factor, it also took into consideration the following mitigating circumstance: Biljana Plavšić’s guilty plea (together with remorse and reconciliation); her voluntary surrender and post-conflict conduct; as well as her age of 72 years.

Balancing all these factors, the Trial Chamber determined that the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić is 11 years’ imprisonment.