Search results

In the ‘Context’ case, a large terrorism case in the Netherlands, nine individuals were found guilty of various terrorism offences, ranging from online incitement to the recruitment of individuals to travel to Syria. This case arose out of investigations into the flow of foreign fighters from the Netherlands – namely people heading to Syria in order to join various terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Nusra. The prosecution successfully argued that an organisation existed in the Netherlands that aimed at recruiting other people to support terrorist groups in Syria and to travel to join the fighting. The case also looked into the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and its role in recruiting individuals.

The nine accused, including several individuals who had travelled to Syria, faced charges concerning incitement to join terrorist groups, the dissemination of inciting materials, the recruitment of people to travel to Syria, the participation in training to commit terrorist crimes, participation in a criminal and terrorist organisation, and other charges relating to inciting hate and defamation. The defendants were all convicted of differing offences and their sentences ranged from seven days’ to six years’ imprisonment. 

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.

Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, by the bias of its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)) caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

Proceedings have commenced and failed against him in the Republic of Chad, Senegal, and most recently in Belgium. The latter State issued an international arrest warrant for Habré in 2005 for charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The request was never complied with; the Court of Appeal of Dakar in Senegal held that Habré enjoyed immunity and it was incompetent to rule on the validity of the arrest warrant for a former Head of State. Belgium instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Senegal was in violation of its obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré under the Convention Against Torture.

The present decision by the ICJ is the culmination of these proceedings. In its decision, the ICJ ruled that Senegal was indeed in breach of its obligations under the Convention and should proceed without further delay to the prosecution of Habré. It cannot rely on its internal law or financial difficulties to evade the implementation of this obligation.

The Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić case before the ICTY concerns the events which occurred from October 1991 to November 1995 in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The conflicts in the former Republic of Yugoslavia have been estimated to be the cause of a death toll of approximately 100,000 people, leading to over 2,000,000 people being displaced. The present case was tried before the ICTY’s Trial Chamber I, and the victims of the crimes were the ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats residing in the targeted municipalities, U.N personnel, and residents of Sarajevo.  

At the time when these events occurred, Mr. Mladić was a Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) Main Staff in the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), including Srebrenica. In his leadership position, Mr. Mladić took control of municipalities in the so-called Serbian Republic of BiH, mainly in the Northwestern and Eastern regions of BiH. In these municipalities, the Bosnian Serb Forces participated in a campaign of persecution to drive the non-Serb populations from these territories, aiming to create an ethnically pure Bosnian Serb State by territorially dividing BiH. 

Mr. Mladić was initially charged together with Mr. Karadžić; however, the judgement in the case of Mr. Mladić was delivered a year later than that of Mr. Karadžić. Mr. Mladić was indicted for 11 charges, 10 of which he was found guilty of, including several charges of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war, and one charge of genocide. The Chamber sentenced Mr. Mladić to life imprisonment.