Search results

The Bosnian Serb Forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and Žepa between March and September 1995. 

After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, the men were separated from the women, children and elderly, and transported to locations where they were detained and killed. 

The Trial Chamber found that these acts constituted genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Chamber found that there were two separate criminal plans, the first of which aimed to murder the Bosnian Muslim men, and the second to remove the civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa. 

For their acts and omissions, the seven accused were found guilty on several counts. The Chamber found all of the accused responsible on counts of crimes against humanity. Popović, Beara, Nikolić, and Borovčanin were found guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war, and with the exception of Borovčanin, they were also found guilty on charges of genocide. 

While Popović and Beara received a punishment of life imprisonment, the rest received sentences between 5 and 35 years of imprisonment.

Frans van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer. Van Anraat was convicted by the District Court of The Hague as accessory to war crimes committed by Hussein and his men. His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal of The Hague and the Supreme Court of The Netherlands. He was sentenced to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The present decision is the result of Van Anraat's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts to try his case. His application was rejected as the European Court of Human Rights found, notably, that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in warfare was a crime under customary international law at the time the applicant supplied thiodiglycol to Iraq and he could therefore rightly be convicted of violations of this custom of war.

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In first instance, the Thai Criminal Court rejected the United States’ extradition request, stating that the charges did not fell within the scope of the extradition treaty. The US appealed.

The Court of Appeal found that extradition is possible, since the charged offenses were punishable both under Thai and US law. Also, the Court disagreed with the Criminal Court on the political nature of the charges. Even though both Courts considered the FARC to be a politically oriented organisation, Bout was not a member of the FARC. Therefore, his offences were ‘ordinary’ offences, the Court reasoned, which fell within the scope of the extradition treaty.

In September 2007, 14 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20 wounded by employees of Blackwater, a private security company hired by the US to protect its government employees. They stated that it was self-defence, but were charged with manslaughter.

They alleged they made statements under pressure (as they were threatened to be fired if they would not do so). Under US law, these statements are ‘compelled’ and can therefore not be used in criminal proceedings. As these statements appeared in the press, both the prosecution team and witnesses were influenced by them. Therefore, the Court ruled, the rights of the defendants have been inexcusably breached. It dismissed the charges against the defendants.

The Court of Appeals did not agree and stated that the District Court should have been more specific when it branded the evidence against the defendants as ‘tainted’. It held that, for example, witness statements should have been subjected to a part by part examination to determine which parts were tainted. These statements should not have been ‘thrown out’ entirely, according to the Court of Appeals. 

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.

In an appeal against two previous rulings in this case, plaintiffs held that they should be allowed to sue Exxon for violations of the law of nations and for violations of state law. The question whether they were allowed to sue for violations of the law of nations hinged primarily on whether corporations can be sued for these violations and whether it is possible to sue for aiding-and-abetting international crimes. These questions were for the most part answered in the affirmative. The question whether they were allowed to sue for violations of state law hinged primarily on the question whether non-resident aliens could even bring a case before the Court. The Court stated that there was no absolute bar for non-residents aliens to sue and that this question had to be answered case-by-case. The Court of Appeals referred the case back to the District Court for further assessment.