Search results

Tihomir Blaškić was brought before the ICTY for his role as Commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Council during the events that took place in the area of Lašva Valley (Bosnia and Herzegovina) between May 1992 and January 1994. The Trial Chamber found him responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 45 years of imprisonment. 

The Appeals Chamber found numerous errors in the trial judgment. 

Firstly, it held that the mental requirement for the mode of responsibility of ordering a crime under the Statute of the Tribunal was erroneously determined. Convicting Blaškić on the basis of the same facts under two separate modes of responsibility was also found to be an error. Secondly, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber made errors in its assessment of the contextual requirements of crimes against humanity. And thirdly, the Appeals Chamber acquitted Blaškić of several charges committed in various locations in central Bosnia since it found that the prerequisite elements of these crimes have not been fulfilled.

The Appeals Chamber concluded by reducing Blaškić' sentence to 9 years prison.

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor form 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and a number of militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign of abuse against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Francisco Pedro, was a member of the Firmi Merah Putih (FIRMI) militia group. On 15 September 1999, he and other militia members abducted three suspected independence supporters from their homes, bundled them into a taxi and drove them to a dark clearing where they were to be killed. The Accused stabbed two of the victims, who died, whilst a third succeeded in escaping. The Accused on another event also acted as a guard at a FIRMI commander’s home where a number of independence supporters were detained and repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten. For his involvement, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder and other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. 

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. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  

Seven U.K. soldiers were on patrol in Iraq on 11 May 2003, with the mission to look out for and halt persons attempting to smuggle money via neighbouring Iran. In the afternoon, a white Toyota pick-up truck came near to their checkpoint, but then drove away as if it was trying to avoid it. The patrollers decided to chase the car. They followed it until the village of Al-Ferkah, where they boxed the car with their vehicles. What happened then, is not entirely clear; what is known, though, is that force was used against both occupants; they were later taken to a hospital, but one of them, the 18 year old Nadhem Abdullah, was severely injured at his head and therefore sent to the Basra hospital for specialist treatment. Somewhere during the trip he died as consequence of his injuries. The U.K. military prosecutor accused the seven soldiers – a Corporal and six Privates under his command – of murder and violent disorder.

The judge found that there were serious issues with the evidence; most of the witness statements were either exaggerated or plain lies. Although it could be established that Abdullah had been assaulted by the accused’s section, it was unclear whether their use of force – which was in principle allowed, as part of their mission to bring an end to smuggling and other armed activities compromising security in the area – had been unlawful in the current case. Furthermore, no individual soldier could be identified as the person dealing the fatal blow, and no one could be individually found to have joined or encouraged an unlawful assault. Hence, all seven were acquitted of all charges.

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law.