Search results

The present case concerned two Accused, Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema, born in Kibuye Prefecture, Rwanda, was educated as a medical doctor and elected prefect of Kibuye in July 1992, a position which he held until July 1994. Ruzindana was also born in Kibuye prefecture and was a successful businessman.

The Prosecution charged Kayishema with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacre at the Catholic Church and Home St. Jean on 17 April 1994, in the massacre at the Stadium in Kibuye Town on about 18 April 1994, in the massacre at the Church in Mubuga on about 14 April 1994 and in the massacres in the area of Bisesero from about 9 April 1994 through 30 June 1994. The Prosecution charged Ruzindana with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination and other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacres in Bisesero.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR convicted Kayishema and Ruzindana on the counts of genocide and dismissed the other counts. The Chamber sentenced Kayishema to life imprisonment and Ruzindana to 25 years' imprisonment.

In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.

Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.

By a decision of 24 July 2007, the District Court of The Hague determined that it did not have jurisdiction to try the Accused for crimes of genocide as it lacked a statutory basis to do so. Further, it could not exercise indirect jurisdiction as one of the three criteria set out in the Dutch Penal Code was not met. 

In its self-declared “War on Terrorism,” the United States began the “High Value Detainee” program, where suspected terrorists would be subjected to special interrogation and detention. The program was managed by the CIA, which detained suspects in secret detention facilities (“black sites”) in cooperation with other foreign governments.

Poland cooperated with the program by allowing the transfer of suspected terrorists through its territory, as well as their detention in a secret facility in Stare Kiejkuty, Poland. An alleged member of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (known as Abu Zubaydah), was held in the Stare Kiejkuty for nine months, where he was subjected to treatment amounting to torture.

The European Court of Human Rights found that as Polish authorities knew what their territory was being used for, Poland shares responsibility for any abuses committed by the CIA on its territory.

Case 002/01 concerns the charges of crimes against humanity against Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea and Nuon Chea, former Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, committed during the forced evacuation of Cambodians to labour camps and for the executions that occurred at Tuol Po Chrey. On 7 August 2014, the Trial Chamber found both accused guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both the Prosecution and Defence appealed the decision. 

The Supreme Court Chamber on 23 November 2016 issued an appeals judgement reversing some of the convictions and affirming the rest. At issue in the appeal was whether the Trial Chamber correctly defined the elements of the murder and extermination crimes against humanity. The Supreme Court Chamber affirmed the murder definition and charges, while finding that extermination requires that the accused had the direct intent to kill on a large scale. Under this definition, the Chamber reversed the convictions for the crime of extermination. The Chamber found insufficient evidence to support convictions as there were too few witnesses to support key facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with this reversal, the Supreme Court Chamber affirmed the life imprisonment sentences of both accused.