Search results

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanziga) is the widow of former Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, whose death on 6 April 1994 marked the beginning of the Rwandan genocide that was to result in the death of some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the lapse of a few months. Agathe Habyarimana is frequently regarded as one of the powers behind Juvénal habyarimana’s Presidencey and as part of the inner circle responsible for the planification and organisation of the Rwandan genocide. On 9 April 1994, she was airlifted to France.

In July 2004, she applied for refugee status but her application was denied by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). By the present decision, the Appeals Commission for Refugees confirmed the rejection and concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990. 

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.

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

The present decision was his final appeal against the French authorities for having illegally detained him on the basis of a dissimulated extradition. The Supreme Court of France, Criminal Law Chamber rejected his appeal finding that his expulsion was not null and there was no obstacle to proceedings against him. Furthermore, his detention was in the interests of the international community which, through the UN, had agreed to help facilitate the return of individuals suspected of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity to the countries where they had perpetrated such offences for the purposes of being brought to justice. 

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. 

Timbul Silaen worked as police chief in East Timor in 1999. As such, he was responsible for the security during the independence referendum held in the country on 30 August 1999. Before and after the referendum deadly incidents took place between people in favour of East Timor’s secession from the Republic of Indonesia and the pro-Indonesian supporters. Approximately 1000 people died, 80% of the territory was destroyed, and 250,000 people were forcibly evacuated to Indonesia.

Silaen was prosecuted because as a commander he allegedly failed to stop his subordinates from committing crimes and also failed to bring them to court in order to be prosecuted. In 2002, the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor did not found Silaen guilty as a commander because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his subordinates had committed the crimes.