Search results

In 1988 the Iraqi government, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein launched a military campaign against the Kurdish population residing in northern Iraq. In eight operations from February until September of that year, both conventional and chemical weapons were deployed against the citizens of Kurdish villages resulting in the deaths and injury of hundreds of thousands. Others were executed in the following raids, their homes were looted and entire villages were burned to the ground. Others still were transported to prison camps where they were starved and detained in inhumane conditions. This campaign became known as the Al Anfal campaign and was the subject of the Iraqi High Tribunal’s second case (the first one being the Al Dujail-trial). 

Seven defendants, including Saddam Hussein and his cousin Ali Hassan Al-Majid ("Chemical Ali"), were brought before the Court. Charges against Hussein were dropped when he was executed in the course of the trial as a result of his conviction in another proceeding. By a verdict of 24 June 2007, the Tribunal convicted five of the remaining six defendants for charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. One of defendant, Tahir Tawfiq Yusif Al-'Ani, was acquitted for lack of evidence. Chemical Ali and two military commanders were sentenced to death by hanging; the other two were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Nikola Andrun, born on 22 November 1957, was during the second half of 1993 a deputy head of the Gabela detention camp in the municipality of Čapljina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) where Bosniak civilians were detained. As deputy head, Andrun took detainees out of the Gabela detention camp on several occasions and subjected them to interrogations, beatings and acts of torture. Between July and September 1993, numerous incidents of detainee abuse took place during which Andrun was present, either as an observer or as a direct participant. Some of the detainees disappeared but their remains were later exhumed and identified.

Andrun was found guilty for war crimes against Bosniak civilians and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

In March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries attempted to exclude from its appeal the political question doctrine, however, the Court of Appeals found that the other raised claims were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the political  question doctrine and therefore, must be considered together. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s earlier finding that the raised issues are political questions and hence, non-justiciable.

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.    

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.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II balanced several sentencing factors. Trial Chamber II, when assessing the aggravating factors, took into consideration the gravity of the offences and Tadić’s awareness of, and support for the attacks against the non-Serb civilians. However, Trial Chamber II considered that Tadić had an unimportant leadership and organisational role in the commission of the crimes.

Trial Chamber II also affirmed its previous findings that crimes against humanity are more serious offences than war crimes and as such, attract higher sentences. The reason for this lies in the widespread or systematic scale and the quantity of the crimes, having a qualitative impact on the nature of the offence which is seen as a crime against humanity as a whole.

Tadić was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.