Search results

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution.

In November 2009, Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal of the case of his case arguing that the nearly five years that Ghailani spent in secret CIA prisons and at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

In July 2010, the District Court found that Ghailani’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated becase, considering all circumstances, the delay did not infringe upon any interest protected by this constitutional right.

Šefik Alić was born on 3 March 1968 in Dobro Selo in the municipality of Buzim, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alić was Assistant Commander for Security of the Hamza Battalion of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 5 August 1995, during the Oluja military operation, soldiers of both the Hamza Battalion and Tewfik Al Harbi captured four soldiers of the army of the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Even though the Hamza Battalion had to protect them, the four soldiers were physically and mentally abused, and Alić participated in the abuses. The four soldiers were subsequently killed by members of Tewfik Al Harbi. As Assistant Commander, Alić had a duty to punish soldiers that committed crimes under his command, but he failed to do so. On 20 January 2011, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Alić guilty of war crimes against prisoners of war and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). It does so on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach the town of Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case.

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.

The armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo opposed numerous tribes of different ethnicities in their struggle to gain power and territory, particularly over the Ituri province in the north-eastern part of the DRC, an area rich in natural resources such as gold and diamonds. One such group, the Union Patriotique des Congolais, was established in 2000 and appointed Lubanga as its chairman. He was also the commander in chief of the armed wing of the UPC, the Front Patriotique pour la Libération du Congo. This armed group was well known for its use of young children to participate in the hostilities, from fighting, to cooking, cleaning, spying, and being used as sexual slaves.

Lubanga was convicted by Trial Chamber I in the International Criminal Court’s first verdict for the war crime of conscripting, enlisting or using children under the age of 15 to actively participate in hostilities. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment on 10 July 2012, with credit for the 6+ years he had spent in detention in the Netherlands during his trial. In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court assessed the gravity of the crimes by considering the age and particular vulnerability of the victims. However, it also considered that Lubanga’s cooperation with the Court and respectful attitude even despite the Prosecution’s conduct merited mitigation.