Search results

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) along with a number of militia groups perpetrated widespread abuses against the civilian population, particularly targeting those known to be or suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

In September 1999, members of the TNI and Dadurus Merah Putih (DMP) militia of which the Accused was a member, surrounded the home of a known independence supporter. In his absence, his relative was dragged outside and beaten with machetes, spears and stones until he died. His brother-in-law, emerging from the neighbouring home, was also targeted – he was shot and stabbed until he too died. The Accused was convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for his participation in the murder of both victims and sentenced to 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted of the charge of torture as the Special Panel found that he did not act with the intent of torturing the victims, but 'solely' with the intent to cause their death.

Ahmad al-Y. was convicted of two crimes: the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity and participation in a terrorist organisation. The court holds that the accused fought alongside Ahrar al-Sham in the Syrian Civil War and considers this organisation to have terrorist intent. Therefore, the accused is convicted for participation in a terrorist organisation.

The court finds the accused also guilty of the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity. Al-Y. can be seen in a video alongside other fighters celebrating a battlefield victory around a deceased person and putting his foot on the body of the deceased person. This conduct, in combination with other acts of the accused in the video, is humiliating and degrading enough to meet the threshold of this crime. In another video, in which the accused is roughly interrogating a captured soldier, this threshold is not met.

Ahmad al-Y. is sentenced to a combined six years of imprisonment, which is a relatively low sentence due to mitigating circumstances.

Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki jointly brought an action against the government of Japan for the damages they and members of their families suffered as a result of the atomic bombings by the United States in August 1945.

Among other things, it was alleged that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an unlawful act and that Japan's waiver of claims for damages under domestic and international law against the US gave rise to an obligation for the government of Japan itself to pay damages.

The Court held that the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were violations of the laws and customs of war, because the attacks did not distinguish between military and civilian targets and inflicted unnecessary suffering. The Court ruled that the bombings, as an indiscriminate bombardment on undefended cities were unlawful acts.

With regard to the claim of the plaintiffs for damages, the Court ruled that individuals did not have rights under international law unless specifically provided for. Since this was not the case, the Court held that individuals could not claim damages directly under international law. The claim was dismissed by the Court on this ground.

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas. In the Treblinka camp in Poland, a Ukrainian guard nicknamed “Ivan the Terrible” was responsible for the operation of the motor to produce the gas and for various abuses perpetrated against the individuals in those camps including severe beatings with bayonets, pipes, whips and swords.

John Demjanjuk was a Ukrainian national who had retired in the United States from his career as a car-worker. He was extradited by the United States to stand trial in Israel when evidence came to light identifying him as Ivan the Terrible. He was convicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against persecuted persons and sentenced to death. On appeal, however, new evidence was introduced that cast a doubt on the identity of Ivan the Terrible. The Supreme Court of Israel found that there was reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible and could not therefore be convicted of the crimes with which he was charged at Treblinka. However, the Supreme Court did state that the evidence did identify Demjanjuk as a member of the SS and a guard at other concentration camps but, since he was not charged with crimes committed in camps other than Treblinka, he had to be acquitted. 

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas.

John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian national and a retired auto-worker residing in the United States, was extradited to Israel to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by him during his time as a guard at the concentration camp Treblinka, Poland. He was convicted by the District Court of Jerusalem and then acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel on the grounds of mistaken identity. The Court found that although the evidence established that Demjanjuk was a Wachtman – an individual trained at a Russian camp to assist the Germans - there was a reasonable doubt that he was Ivan the Terrible, the notorious guard at Treblinka responsible for a number of crimes.

The present decision is a petition by 10 civil parties for new trial proceedings to be brought against Demjanjuk on the basis of his involvement not with the Treblinka camp, but with the camp at Sobibor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding that new proceedings might violate the rule on double jeopardy, which prohibits individuals being judged twice for the same conduct.