Search results

The Accused were members of the Civil Defense Forces of Sierra Leone, fighting the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) and AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council) rebels in an effort to restore the democratically elected President Kabbah who had been ousted following a coup. Their activities, however, did not always target enemy forces; large numbers of civilians, including young children and women were made the object of brutal attacks, often by machetes.

Fofana and Kondewa were convicted by Trial Chamber I for 4 counts of war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishment. Kondewa was additionally convicted for recruitment of child soldiers. The Trial Chamber, in determining sentencing, took into account the gravity of the offences and the role of the Accused. In particular, the Trial Chamber considered it a mitigating circumstance that the Accused had engaged in the conflict out of a sense of duty in order to protect civilians, and had pursued a legitimate and justifiable purpose of returning former President Kabbah to power. Consequently, Fofana was sentenced to 6 years in prison and Kondewa to 8 years.

The Accused, Aloys Simba, is a retired lieutenant colonel, a member of the “Comrades of the Fifth of July”, who participated in the coup d’ état that brought former President Habyarimana to power in 1973, and was a member of parliament from 1989 to 1993.

The Trial Chamber had found Simba guilty of genocide for his role in the killing of Tutsi civilians at Murambi Technical School and Kaduha Parish. Furthermore, he had been convicted of extermination as a crime against humanity based on the same facts. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment, with credit being given for time already served.

Simba appealed his convictions and his sentence, while the Prosecution submitted two grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by both Simba and the Prosecutor and affirmed the sentence of twenty-five years of imprisonment. 

Warsame, a Canadian citizen, travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to attend Al-Qaeda training camps. On his return to Canada, he sent money to representatives of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. alleged that by attending the Al-Qaeda training camp and sending money, Warsame provided material support and resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Warsame claimed that the provisions on the basis of which he was charged violated the U.S. Constitution’s right to freedom of association because it criminalized his mere association with an organization. The court rejected this claim, finding that the statute did not impose “guilt by association,” but rather guilt by conduct that amounted to providing support or resources.

The court also held the statute did not violate Warsame’s constitutional rights to due process and to a jury determination on each essential element of the offense.

Until July 1994, Michel Bagaragaza was the managing director of OCIR-Tea, the controlling body for the tea industry in Rwanda. Bagaragaza is accused of conspiring with his employees in order to kill Tutsis in the Gisenyi Prefecture. In addition, he was a member of the local committee of the Republican Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND) for the Gisenyi Prefecture. Bagaragaza was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on charges of genocide, and in the alternative, war crimes. His case was referred to The Netherlands at the request of the Prosecutor of the ICTR.

However, a decision of the District Court of The Hague in a case against another Rwandan national, Joseph Mpambara, in which the Court held that the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over genocide committed by non-Dutch nationals abroad prior to 2003, was released soon after Bagaragaza's surrender to The Netherlands. Fearing that the outcome would be the same and the case against him would not proceed in The Netherlands, the ICTR requested The Netherlands to surrender Bagaragaza back to the ICTR for prosecution. By a decision of 21 March 2008, the District Court of The Hague authorised the surrender. 

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 this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place.