Search results

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations. 

The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić case before the ICTY concerned events which occurred from October 1991 to November 1995 in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. These conflicts have been estimated to be the cause of a death toll of approximately 100,000 people, and to over 2,000,000 people being displaced.The victims in this case were the ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats residing in the targeted municipalities. The crimes in question (such as murder) were committed by Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs, as per orders issued by government leaders, one of whom was Mr. Karadžić. 

Mr. Karadžić was the President of the Republika Srpska (RS) and Supreme Commander of the RS armed forces during the conflicts. In his leadership position, Mr. Karadžić, together with other leaders, aimed to create an ethnically pure Bosnian Serb State by territorially dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Karadžić’s leadership position leveraged his power in ordering the RS armed forces and facilitating the commission of crimes against humanity, genocide, and violations of rules and customs of war. Therefore, Mr. Karadžić was indicted by the ICTY of 11 counts of crimes, including crimes against humanity, violations of rules and customs of war, and genocide. On 24 March 2016, Mr. Karadžić was found guilty of most of the counts and acquitted of one genocide count. As a result, Mr. Karadžić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.

On 1 September 2016, Sydneysider Hamdi Alqudsi was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years, for his involvement in assisting seven fighters to travel to the conflict in Syria. Mr. Alqudsi was convicted by a jury on 12 July 2016 after attempting to argue that he was trying to save lives in Syria. Ultimately, it was found through intercepted communications that he was well aware of what the fighters he helped get to Syria and the Islamic State were doing there. Moreover, Judge Adamson acknowledged that he had been a key player in the movement of fighters from Australia to Syria as he linked those who wanted to travel with another fighter who was already there and had joined a jihadi group. 

The 1998 United States Embassy bombings were a series of attacks that occurred on 7 August 1998, in which hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous truck bomb explosions at the embassies of the United States in the East African cities of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. The date of the bombings marked the eighth anniversary of the arrival of American forces in Saudi Arabia.

Members of the al-Qaeda (terrorist group) were charged for planning and committing the bombing of the Embassies of the US in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Usama bin Laden is the head of Al-Qaeda and as such was amongst the people charged. The charges included also conspiracy to murder of US nationals anywhere in the world, US military personnel in Somalia and the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, US nationals serving in the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the concealment of any such plans of Al-Qaeda. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected.