Search results

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.

After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousand Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over 1000 men were brought to a warehouse and executed. Vaso Todorović, a former policeman who was involved in capturing and detaining these men and who stood guard as these men were killed, was initially charged with genocide. However, these charges were amended to a charge of crimes against humanity, and Todorović entered into a plea agreement. The Court had to assess whether there was enough evidence for a conviction and whether his plea was credible. After establishing that a widespread or systematic attack against civilians had taken place in Srebrencia, the Court established that Todorović knew about the attack and that his actions should be regarded in the context of the attack. The Court considered proven that Todorović had participated in detaining men in a warehouse, after which he prevented them from escaping their subsequent execution. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

Damir Ivanković was born on 26 June 1970 in Prijedor. In 1992, he was a member of the Prijedor police station and the police intervention platoon from Prijedor. He pleaded guilty of escorting a convoy consisting of at least 16 buses, tractor-trailers, trucks and truck-trailers carrying more than 1,200 predominantly Muslim and some Croat civilian, who were detained at the Bosnian Serb-run Trnopolje concentration camp. Ivanković further admitted that when the convoy reached Mount Vlašić, he and other members of the police intervention platoon and the Prijedor police separated more than 200 men. They subsequently boarded them on two buses and brought them to a location called Korićanske stijene on Mount Vlašić, an area where there is a sheer rock face on one side of the road and a steep cliff on the other. There, Ivanković and the others ordered the men of the first bus to kneel on the very edge of the road above the cliff and subsequently fired at them. Some of the men jumped into the abyss hoping that they would survive. The men from the second bus were executed in groups of three. Thereafter, the accused threw hand grenades from the top of the precipice, and opened fire at the dead bodies and at those who jumped. In total, more than 200 men were killed and only 12 survived.

Ivanković was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’.

With the case back at the Court of Appeals, the question to be determined was the scope of the jurisdiction of the ATCA with regard to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and racial discrimination. The Court held that genocide and war crimes fall within the scope of the ATCA. These norms, according to the Court, are specific, universal and obligatory accepted and extend to corporations. However, the crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and the racial discrimination claims are not and, therefore, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims of genocide and war crimes.

Between April and July 1994, as much as 10% of the entire Rwandan civilian population was murdered in an ethnic conflict in which the Hutus sought to eliminate the Tutsis. At the same time, an armed conflict was fought between the Rwandan government army (FAR) and the armed forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The RPF were a rebel army primarily composed of descendants of Rwandan Tutsi who fled from Rwanda in preceding years.

The accused, Joseph Mpambara, fled Rwanda for The Netherlands. He was arrested and brought before the Dutch courts on charges of war crimes, torture and genocide. Although the Dutch courts deemed themselves without jurisdiction for genocide, Mpambara was initially convicted for torture. The Court of Appeal also found him guilty of war crimes and increased his 20 years' prison sentence to life imprisonment. Mpambara appealed at the Supreme Court, arguing that the previous judgment - especially the use of evidence from witnesses he could not examine and the issuance of a life sentence - was in violation of his fundamental rights (as found in the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR), namely his rights to a fair trial and to protection against inhumane treatment.

The Supreme Court found the grounds of appeal unfounded, dismissed Mpambara's appeal, and confirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment and sentence.