Search results

During the Vietnam war, the United States used herbicides (including ‘Agent Orange’) in an effort to deprive the enemy of places to hide in forests and agricultural lands. In the decades after the war, reports on detrimental health effects of Agent Orange started coming out.

In this case, a Vietnamese organisation and several Vietnamese individuals did not sue the United States directly, but claimed that several chemical corporations by manufacturing the herbicides had violated national and international law. The Court rejected their claims based on national law, as under US law product liability against government contractors is barred.

Although the Court held that corporations can be held liable under international law, it also rejected the international law based claims as it did not find any international legal obligation which prohibited the US from using herbicides during the Vietnam war. The Court especially emphasised that the herbicides were not used with the specific intent to harm persons, but to ‘kill plants’. The Court held that since the use of herbicides during the Vietnam war had not been illegal, the manufacturers were not liable. The case was dismissed.

In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics.

The Court of Appeals agreed, refusing to differentiate between this particular alleged decision and the general tendencies of foreign policy in 1970. It therefore confirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the Constitution had provided Congress with sufficient instruments to check the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy. It should be left to politicians to answer political questions, the Court reasoned, not to judges. 

From late May until mid-July 1994 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government of Rwanda. He was also a member of the Mouvement Républican National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) in Kigali-Rural préfecture.

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Kamuhanda guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Accused had supervised the killings in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural prefecture. He had distributed firearms, grenades and machetes to the Interahamwe militia. He had also led the attacks at the parish church and adjoining school in Gikomero, where several thousand Tutsi civilians were killed.

Kamuhanda raised 15 grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted genocide and extermination. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had correctly held Kamuhanda responsible for ordering genocide and extermination and ruled that vacating the findings that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted the crimes did not require the imposition of a lighter sentence.

Abduladhim Maktouf is a businessman with Iraqi-Bosnian roots. After investigations had started in 2004 with regard to economic crimes, the Bosnian prosecution discovered that he might have been involved in war crimes committed by the Al Mujahid armed group that formed part of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the armed conflict against the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), the army of the Bosnian Croats, during the early nineties. In 2005, an indictment was issued, alleging that Maktouf had facilitated the Al Mujahid by transporting them, while they were about to take a number of civilians as hostages in order to exchange them with the HVO for earlier captured Al Mujahid fighters, in his van towards the crime scene as well as assisting them in the actual hostage-taking and the subsequent ritual beheading of one of the hostages.

The first instance panel of the Court found that he had been guilty as accessory to the hostage-taking and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment; his involvement in the beheading was not established, though. Both defence and prosecution appealed. After a partial retrial was ordered because the evidence was wrongly assessed in first instance, the Appellate Panel ruled on 4 April 2006 in the same manner as the first instance panel had done: Maktouf was found guilty of a war crime against civilians, and he again received a five-year prison sentence.

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

By a decision of 17 June 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, the former mayor of Rusumo commune, of genocide and crimes against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber found that Gacumbitsi had used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. On appeal by the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify a number of important areas of law including the law applicable to instigation and rape as a crime against humanity. The Chamber dismissed all of Gacumbitsi’s grounds of appeal but entered new convictions for murder as a crime against humanity. Gacumbitsi’s sentence was increased to life imprisonment.