Search results

In the period between January and June 1999, the Serb forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Albanian population of Kosovo, with the aim to remove them from the region. The bodies of the Kosovo Albanians were concealed in centers near Belgrade and later buried in secret mass graves. Ðorđević, who was the head of the police forces, was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Chamber came to the conclusion that Ðorđević participated in a common plan to eliminate the Albanian population of Kosovo, and that his role was indispensable for the fulfillment of the operation.

The Chamber found him guilty of aiding and abetting the charged crimes due to his direct involvement in the concealing of bodies murdered by the Serb forces. He also failed to conduct an investigation of these crimes, which was sufficient for his conviction. Ðorđević was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment.

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Members of the pre-dominantly Hutu Rwandan Armed Forces, including the Rwandan Army (FAR), the Gendarmerie Nationale and the elite reconnaissance unit, the RECCE Battalion, along with Interahamwe militia members perpetrated a series of attacks against largely unarmed Tutsi civilians.

The incidents concerned by the present case are numerous and include the killings of Tutsi at Kansi Parish, St André College, Nyanza Hill, Musambara commune office and many more. Women and girls were also raped. The Prime Minister and the Belgian personnel guarding her were also assassinated by members of the RECCE Battalion. The present case brings together four key military leaders, responsible for the conduct of the soldiers and gendarmes who perpetrated the afore-mentioned attacks: Ndindiliyimana was Chief of the Gendarmerie Nationale, Bizimungu was head of the FAR, Nzuwonemeye was Commander of the RECCE Battalion and Sagahutu was commander of one of the combat squadrons of the same RECCE Battalion. In light of their authority over their respective forces, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found Ndindiliyimana guily of genocide, crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; Bizimungu guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, murder and rape as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; and Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu guilty of crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. 

Bizimungu received a 30-year sentence, Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu each received 20 year sentences. Controversially, Ndindiliyimana received a sentence for time served, meaning that his 11 years in detention prior to and during the trial sufficed and he was released following the judgment. On Appeal, Ndindiliyimana and Nzuwonemeye were aquitted, Sagahutu had his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity affirmed, but the sentence lowered from 20 to 15 years and Bizimungu's sentence was upheld to 30 years inprisonment.

Radoje Lalović was born on 15 July 1946 in the municipality of Kalinovik, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period between early May and mid-December 1992, Lalović was a warden at the Butmir Correctional and Penal Facility (KPD) in Kula, the Sarajevo municipality of Ilidža, which mostly functioned as a detention camp.

Soniboj Škiljević was born on 14 August 1948 in Izgori in the municipality of Gacko, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Škiljević served as a deputy warden at the Butmir Correctional and Penal Facility (KPD) in Kula, also in the period between early May and mid-December 1992.

Lalović and Škiljević were responsible for the functioning of the Butmir KPD and the actions of its guards. In 2001, they were not found guilty of charges that they, inter alia, ordered the killings, imprisonment, and torture of the detainees held at the Butmir KPD. Lalović and Škiljević were neither found guilty of the charges that even though they knew that the crimes were taking place, they did not prevent them or did punish the perpetrators.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military took control of the Abu Ghraib prison located near Baghdad, using it to detain criminals, enemies of the provisional government, and other persons thought to possess information regarding the anti-Coalition insurgency. The U.S. contracted with CACI International, Incorporated (with CACI Premier Technology, Incorporated, together referred to as CACI), and Titan Corporation, now L-3 Services, Incorporated (L-3), to provide civilian employees to assist the military in communicating with and interrogating the latter group of detainees. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they ended up torturing or unlawfully killing people. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc. and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3, a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a US citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 at the Abu Ghraib prison. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also allege that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint. The Court rejected the motions on 29 June 2010, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

Defendants appealed the decision to reject their motions, to which plaintiffs responded that U.S. appeals courts have no jurisdiction to rule on their appeals since the underlying case was not decided yet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District disagreed: it found that the current issue was of great public importance so that, since the District Court had given a final decision on defendants’ immunity, it was entitled to jurisdiction. Now that it could exercise jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals quashed the District Court’s decision in its entirety and remanded it with instructions for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim.