skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: mothers srebrenica netherlands & un

> Refine results with advanced case search

358 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 27 of 72   next > last >>

Karemera & Ngirumpatse: The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera & Matthieu Ngirumpatse

Judgement and Sentence, 2 Feb 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania

The Arusha Accords brought an end to the civil war in Rwanda that had opposed the government to the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front. They introduced a transitional multi-party government with Habyarimana of the Mouvement Républicain National pour la Démocratie et le Développement (MRND) as its President. Following the death of the president on 6 April 1994, however, hostilities broke out once more.

The MRND, with the Accused Ngirumpatse as its President and his co-Accused Karemera as its Vice President proceeded to introduce and implement measures designed to target the Tutsi population. They actively supported the Interahamwe, a civilian militia that acted as the youth wing of the MRND, and which was resopnsible for the mass killing as well as the rape and sexual assault of countless Tutsi women. The Accused interfered with the territorial administration in Rwanda, warning local officials to support the Hutu policy and replacing any who opposed the killing of Tutsis. They travelled across governemnt controlled parts of Rwanda and espoused their anti-Tutsi policy with a view to inciting more killings.

By a judgment of 2 February 2012, Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found both Accused guilty of genocide, conspiracy to commit the same, direct and public incitement of the same, rape and extermination as crimes against humanity and the war crime of killing. They were both sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment comes after 7 years of trial, the withdrawal of three judges, the death of one co-Accused and the controversial decision taking judicial notice that a genocide occurred in Rwanda in 1994, thereby alleviating the Prosecution of having to introduce evidence in order to prove the allegation beyond a reasoinable doubt.


Hategekimana: Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 8 May 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Ildephonse Hategekimana was born in Mugina Commne, Gitarama Prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, during the events in Rwanda, he held the rank of lieutenant in the Rwandan army. As determined by Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal, during the relevant period covered by the indictment, Hategekimana was the commander of the Ngoma Military Camp in Butare Prefecture.

On 7 September 2007, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal requested the transfer of Hategekimana’s case for trial before Rwandan courts. On 19 June 2008 the Chamber rejected the request due to fears that the Accused would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Therefore, the case was tried before Trial Chamber II of the ICTR. On 16 March 2009, Hategekimana was found guilty by the Trial Chamber of genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and rape as a crime against humanity for his role in ordering the killing of Tutsi refugees at the Ngoma church. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hategekimana appealed the Trial judgment on seven grounds, challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of Appeal and affirmed Hategekimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. 


Nzabonimana: The Prosecutor v. Callixte Nzabonimana

Judgement and Sentence, 31 May 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, an interim government was established in Rwanda within which Callixte Nzabonimana held the position of Minister of Youth and Associative Movements.

The Trial Chamber found that Nzabonimana was a figure of authority in Gitarama as a result of this position and his role in the political party, MNRD. Evidence presented led the Trial Chamber to conclude that the Accused had used this position of authority to direct the Hutu civilian population and commune policemen to attack the Tutsi’s. He did so by making a number of speeches, and further, by threatening local officials with death or replacement in the event that they opposed the killing of Tutsis.  His orders were carried out by Hutu civilians and by commune policemen who proceeded to attack and kill Tutsi civilians. Accordingly, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted the Accused of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.


Belgium v. Senegal

Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, 20 Jul 2012, International Court of Justice, The Netherlands

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.


T21: The Prosecutor v. T21

Appeals Judgment, 20 Dec 2012, Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of the Hague, The Netherlands

On 26 October 2010, a group of 20 Somalians, armed with machine guns and bazookas, violently attacked a yacht off the Seychelles. They hijacked the South African yacht ‘Choizil’ off the Tanzanian coast after it had left Dar es Salaam en route for South Africa. Because the South African authorities refused to prosecute the captured Somalians, five men who were members of the group were arrested and transferred to the Netherlands in order to be prosecuted.

On 12 August 2011, the Court of First Instance of Rotterdam convicted the five men for piracy and sentenced them for a period between four-and-a-half and seven years. The decision was appealed by the defendants to the Court of Appeal of the Hague.

One of the appellants was T21. On 20 December 2012, the Court of Appeal found that though the accused had not been able to call certain witnesses (namely, other suspects who had been captured together with T21 but were released afterwards), this did not violate his fair trial rights; T21 had been given sufficient means for his defence and the equality-of-arms-principle was found to have been ensured.

The Court of Appeal found the accused guilty for his intentional participation in a group that intended to hijack ships and use them for unlawful purposes and in unlawful ways. The Court further found that the accused had threatened persons on board of the Choizil with force, but, contrary to the Court of First Instance, it was not convinced that he had actually fired any weapon himself. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance and replaced it with a new decision on the facts that were proven. The sentence was reduced from six to five years' imprisonment (with credit for time on remand).

The case was the first time a criminal case, in which Somali pirates stood trial, was heard in appeal in the Netherlands.


<< first < prev   page 27 of 72   next > last >>