Search results

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.

The case encompasses the persecution of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs in 37 municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, and the role played by Biljana Plavšić therein, as a high level political figure. On 2 October 2002, Plavšić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and the Trial Chamber found him guilty accordingly. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crimes as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, the Trial Chamber attached weight to the massive scope and extent of the persecutions; the numbers killed, deported and forcibly expelled; the grossly inhumane treatment of detainees; and the scope of the wanton destruction of property and religious buildings. 

Although the Trial Chamber accepted Biljana Plavšić’s superior position as an aggravating factor, it also took into consideration the following mitigating circumstance: Biljana Plavšić’s guilty plea (together with remorse and reconciliation); her voluntary surrender and post-conflict conduct; as well as her age of 72 years.

Balancing all these factors, the Trial Chamber determined that the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić is 11 years’ imprisonment.

Madelaine Bukumba, a woman originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was previously employed by the Comité de Securité de l'État (CSE). Her job was to listen incognito to the conversations of individuals in public places and to report on their opinions to the CSE as well as on media coverage of the government. 

After being shown on television speaking against the government’s use of child soldiers, Bukumba was put in prison for 15 days. Following her release, she attempted to quit her job but was threatened to be killed if she would quit. Thereafter, Bukumba fled to Kenya and eventually to Canada together with her minor daughter.

Bukumba claimed protection under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in order not to be returned to the DRC. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada held that she did not qualify for protection because she had been an accomplice to serious crimes committed by the government because she was a former governmental employee. In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Board held that there was no risk to her or her daughter’s life if returned to the DRC.

On 1 December 2003, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR sentenced Kajelijeli to two concurrent life terms for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and to an additional 15 years imprisonment for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. All three sentences were to run concurrently.

The Appeals Chamber overthrew Kajelijeli's cumulative convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity under Counts 2 and 6 insofar as they were based upon a finding of command responsibility. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber was required to take its finding on Kajelijeli’s superior position (Article 6(3)) into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had done so. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.

However, the Appeals Chamber ruled that in view of the serious violations of his fundamental rights during his arrest and detention in Benin and at the UN detention facility from 5 June 1998 to 6 April 1999, the two life sentences and the 15 year sentences which were to run concurrently imposed by the Trial Chamber should be converted into a single sentence of imprisonment for 45 years. The Appeals Chamber ordered that Kajelijeli be given credit for time already served in detention.