Search results

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.

Tharcisse Renzaho, a former Rwandan Armed Forces Colonel, had been charged by the Prosecutor of the ICTR with genocide, or, in the alternative, complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and war crimes (murder and rape) for his role in the Rwandan genocide.

The Trial Chamber found the Accused guilty of genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity and murder and rape as war crimes. Specifically, the Chamber concluded that Renzaho had supported the killings of Tutsis at roadblocks, which were set up following his directives. It also found that he had ordered the distribution of weapons, and that were later used to kill Tutsis. In addition, the Accused had supervised a selection process at a refugee site called CELA, where about 40 Tutsis were abducted and killed. The Chamber further held that Renzaho had participated in an attack at the Sainte Famille church, where more than 100 Tutsis had been killed. He had also encouraged the sexual abuse of women and was found criminally liable for the rape that followed.

For his role in these events, the Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military took control of the Abu Ghraib prison located near Baghdad, using it to detain criminals, enemies of the provisional government, and other persons thought to possess information regarding the anti-Coalition insurgency. The U.S. contracted with CACI International, Incorporated (with CACI Premier Technology, Incorporated, together referred to as CACI), and Titan Corporation, now L-3 Services, Incorporated (L-3), to provide civilian employees to assist the military in communicating with and interrogating the latter group of detainees. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they ended up torturing or unlawfully killing people. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc. and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3, a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a US citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 at the Abu Ghraib prison. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also allege that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint. The Court rejected the motions on 29 June 2010, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

Defendants appealed the decision to reject their motions, to which plaintiffs responded that U.S. appeals courts have no jurisdiction to rule on their appeals since the underlying case was not decided yet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District disagreed: it found that the current issue was of great public importance so that, since the District Court had given a final decision on defendants’ immunity, it was entitled to jurisdiction. Now that it could exercise jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals quashed the District Court’s decision in its entirety and remanded it with instructions for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim.

On 25 February 2010, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR convicted Lieutenant Colonel Ephrem Setako for genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and violence to life as a war crime for ordering the killings of between 30 to 40 ethnic Tutsi refugees at Mukamira military camp on 25 April 1994 and the death of nine or 10 Tutsis on 11 May 1994. The Chamber imposed on  Setako a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment.

Setako and the Prosecution both appealed the Trial judgment. Setako alleged errors of law and errors of fact of the judgment. The Prosecution submitted three grounds of appeal.

On 28 September 2011, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Setako’s appeal in its entirety, while it partially granted the Prosecution’s appeal but it did not increase Setako’s sentence. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber convicted Setako for murder as a war crime for the killings committed against Tutsis on 11 May 1994.