Search results

Nine relatives of people killed during a series of national protests in Bolivia in October 2003, brought a case in the U.S. against the former President of Bolivia, Sánchez de Lozada, and the former Minister of Defence of Bolivia, Sánchez Berzaín. The plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín were responsible for the killing of more than 400 people in Bolivia during the suppression of the protests directed against the government’s policies. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín gave orders to the Bolivian security forces to use deadly force against protestors. The plaintiffs asked for compensation. On 29 August 2011, a U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed their claims because they had not presented enough evidence to establish a link between both Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín and the killings.

Sylvère Ahorugeze was a Rwandan national and former director of the Rwandan Civil Aviation Authority and Kigali international airport. An international arrest warrant was issued against him on the basis of his alleged participation in the crime of genocide (intentional destruction of a national, racial, ethnical or religious group or part of it) and crimes against humanity (crimes committed on large scale including but not limited to murder, rape, torture) committed in Rwanda in 1994. On 16 July 2008, Ahorugeze was arrested in Sweden and on 7 July 2009, the Swedish government decided that he could be extradited to Rwanda. 

Subsequently, Ahorugeze filed an application at the ECtHR.  He claimed that his health was poor, and that his Hutu ethnic background, the prison conditions in Rwanda, and a lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary were factors that should prevent his extradition to Rwanda. The Court dismissed his case and held that there were no reasons to believe that Ahorugeze would be subjected to inhumane or unfair treatment in Rwanda and that he would not receive a fair trial.

Grégoire Ndahimana was Mayor of Kivumu commune (community)in Rwanda in April 1994. Following the death of President Habyarimana, a common plan was realised in Kivumu commune. The purpose of this plan was to exterminate the Tutsis who lived there.

After the President’s death, one to two thousand Tutsi civilians sought refuge at Nyange parish. Only a very small number of these civilians survived the attacks on the parish that occurred on 15 and 16 April 1994.

The Prosecutor of the ICTR charged Ndahimana with genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his role in the massacres of Tutsis that took place in Kivumu commune over ten days from 6 April 1994 to 16 April 1994. He was found guilty of genocide and extermination by aiding and abetting as well as by virtue of his command responsibility over the communal police. Ndahimana was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.  

Both the Prosecution and the Defence have lodged appeals against the judgment.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes.