Search results

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

The Accused, Alfred Musema, was director of the Gisovu Tea Factory in Kibuye Prefecture during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The Prosecutor alleged that on various occasions during April, May and June 1994, Musema transported armed attackers, including employees of the factory, to different locations in Gisovu and Gishyita communes and ordered them to attack Tutsis seeking refuge there. He also personally took part in such attacks and killings. The indictment against Musema was later amended to include charges that he committed various acts of rape and that he ordered and encouraged others to rape and kill Tutsi women.

With regard to certain allegations concerning specific attacks, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found that either the evidence presented was not sufficient or that Musema's alibi cast doubt on the Prosecution evidence. The Chamber was satisfied nevertheless that Musema had participated in attacks at Gitwa Hill, Rwirambo Hill, Muyira Hill and at Mumataba during late-April and mid-May and his alibi for that period was not accepted. The Chamber also found that he had raped a woman named Nyiramusugi and, by his example, encouraged others to rape her. For these acts, the Trial Chamber found Musema guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (extermination and rape) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  

When Rwandan President Habyariamana was killed on 6 April 1994, it reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations, which had earlier in the same decade culminated in a bloody civil war.

Omar Serushago was the de facto leader of the civilian Interahamwe militia, one of the primary perpetrators of the crimes committed against Tutsis and moderate Hutus in the genocide of 1994. In his official capacity, Serushago led a group of militiamen in raids against Tutsis seeking refuge in parish churches, on commercial property, in bishop’s houses, and even those who were detained in the Gendarmerie station jail. Tutsis would then be summarily executed, some personally at the hands of Serushago. Having pleaded guilty to one count of genocide and three counts of crimes against humanity (assassination, extermination and torture), Serushago was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Trial Chamber. By a decision of 14 February 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Serushago’s arguments that the sentence against him was excessively long. The present decision contains the reasons of the Appeals Chamber for having reached this conclusion. 

The Accused in the present case was Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister. On 4 September 1998, he had pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity (murder and extermination) and Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and later requested that his guilty plea be quashed and that he stand trial.

Before the Appeals Chamber, Kambanda argued that he had not been assigned the lawyer of his choice and that even when he finally did receive legal representation the assignment of the lawyer was influenced by the Prosecution. He also accused his defense counsel, Mr. Oliver Michael Inglis, of inadequate representation. In addition, he claimed that the Registry had organized his detention in facilities where he was isolated from other detainees and that he felt oppressed by these arrangements. The Prosecution pointed out that, for a while, Kambanda had refused any legal representation until the Registry told him that in the interest of justice he had to be represented by counsel. He subsequently requested the Registry, in writing, to assign Mr. Inglis as his defence counsel.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds advanced by the Accused and upheld his sentence.

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Habré as well as members of the DDS, and its specialised branch the Special Rapid Action Brigade (Brigade Spéciale d'Intervention Rapide (BSIR)) were named in complaints filed by victims of the regime before the Court of First Instance in N’Djaména.

The Court held, however, that in light of an ordinance establishing a special criminal court of justice to try Habré and the other officials of the regime, it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case or admit the complaints of the parties. This decision is the first in a long line of case-law spanning proceedings in Chad, Senegal, Belgium and The Netherlands attempting to bring Habré to justice.