skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: amnesty international canada bccla canada chief defence staff

> Refine results with advanced case search

608 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 28 of 122   next > last >>

Kanyarukiga: Gaspard Kanyarukiga v. The Prosecutor

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

Gaspard Kanyarukiga is a Rwandan national. At the time of the genocide in April 1994, he was a businessman who owned a pharmacy in the Nyange Trading Centre, in Kivumu commune. Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal found him guilty of participating in planning the destruction of the Nyange church on 16 April 1994, which resulted in the killing of approximately 2,000 Tutsi civilians. He was convicted under Article 6(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal for planning genocide and extermination as crime against humanity. He received a sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment.

Kanyarukiga submitted 72 grounds of appeal and the Prosecution submitted 2 grounds of appeal against the Trial Chamber’s judgment. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds of appeal, upheld his convictions for planning genocide and exterminations as a crime against humanity and affirmed the original sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment imposed on him.  


Aleksovski: The Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski

Judgment, 24 Mar 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

Zlatko Aleksovski was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes against the detainees of the Kaonik prison in the Lašva Valley area of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the hostilities between the Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Muslim forces, the facility was used as a detention place for Bosnian Muslims. The detainees were subjected to physical and mental mistreatments. Furthermore, they were used as human shields and for trench digging. Aleksovski was the commander of the Kaonik prison from January 1993 till May 1993. Trial Chamber I found him guilty of outrages upon personal dignity as a violation of the laws or customs of war.

The Appeals Chamber held that Trial Chamber I applied the wrong test for determining the nature of the armed conflict and the status of the protected persons. However, it did not reverse the acquittals on the two counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

The Appeals Chamber also agreed with the Prosecution that Trial Chamber I should have found Aleksovski responsible not only for the mistreatments that occurred inside the Kaonik prison but also for those that occurred outside of it. The Appeals Chamber revised the sentence to 7 years of imprisonment.


Serushago: Omar Serushago v. The Prosecutor

Reasons for Judgement, 6 Apr 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania

When Rwandan President Habyariamana was killed on 6 April 1994, it reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations, which had earlier in the same decade culminated in a bloody civil war.

Omar Serushago was the de facto leader of the civilian Interahamwe militia, one of the primary perpetrators of the crimes committed against Tutsis and moderate Hutus in the genocide of 1994. In his official capacity, Serushago led a group of militiamen in raids against Tutsis seeking refuge in parish churches, on commercial property, in bishop’s houses, and even those who were detained in the Gendarmerie station jail. Tutsis would then be summarily executed, some personally at the hands of Serushago. Having pleaded guilty to one count of genocide and three counts of crimes against humanity (assassination, extermination and torture), Serushago was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Trial Chamber. By a decision of 14 February 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Serushago’s arguments that the sentence against him was excessively long. The present decision contains the reasons of the Appeals Chamber for having reached this conclusion. 


Furundžija: The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija

Judgment, 21 Jul 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

Anto Furundžija was the commander of a special unit of the Croatian Defence Council called the “Jokers.” He was brought before the ICTY for the commission of crimes against Bosnian Muslims who were interrogated at the headquarters of the “Jokers” (in Nadioci, Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1993. During the interrogations, those detained were subjected to sexual assaults, rape and other physical and mental suffering. Trial Chamber II found Furundžija guilty of torture and outrages upon personal dignity including rape (as violations of the laws or customs of war). Subsequently, he was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.

Furundžija appealed against the judgment of Trial Chamber II, arguing that he was denied the right to a fair trial; that the evidence was insufficient to convict him; that the reliance on evidence of acts that were not charged in the indictment was improper; that the presiding judge should have been disqualified; and that the imposed sentence was excessive. 

The Appeals Chamber, unanimously, dismissed all grounds of appeal of Furundžija and affirmed his sentence of 10 years of imprisonment. 


Kambanda: Jean Kambanda v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 19 Oct 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

The Accused in the present case was Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister. On 4 September 1998, he had pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity (murder and extermination) and Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and later requested that his guilty plea be quashed and that he stand trial.

Before the Appeals Chamber, Kambanda argued that he had not been assigned the lawyer of his choice and that even when he finally did receive legal representation the assignment of the lawyer was influenced by the Prosecution. He also accused his defense counsel, Mr. Oliver Michael Inglis, of inadequate representation. In addition, he claimed that the Registry had organized his detention in facilities where he was isolated from other detainees and that he felt oppressed by these arrangements. The Prosecution pointed out that, for a while, Kambanda had refused any legal representation until the Registry told him that in the interest of justice he had to be represented by counsel. He subsequently requested the Registry, in writing, to assign Mr. Inglis as his defence counsel.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds advanced by the Accused and upheld his sentence.


<< first < prev   page 28 of 122   next > last >>