Search results

Mirko Vračević was born on 15 March 1945 in Donji Smrtići in Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was member of the Bijelo Polje Battalion of the Second Brigade of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), and a guard in the Vojno prison facility which was set up by the HVO. In the period between July 1993 and March 1994, Vračević planned, instigated and perpetrated an attack conducted by the HVO against the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniak) residing in the municipality of Mostar. During that attack, 76 women, children and elderly were arrested and later kept in houses in Vojno village located in the Mostar municipality. Moreover, hundreds of men were kept in garages and cellars of houses where they were beaten and psychologically maltreated, and as a result, 16 of them died. During their detention, the Bosniak civilians did not have access to adequate food, clothing, drinking water or medical care.

Nikola Kovačević was a member of a special unit of the Serb Territorial Defence for the municipality of Sanski Most in north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period between April and August 1992, Kovačević and members of the army of the former Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were involved in the persecution of Bosnian Muslims and Croats of the municipality of Sanski Most. In addition, Kovačević initiated the transfer of 60 detainees to the Manjaca concentration camp in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina, and did beat them while they were entering the camp. 

On 3 November 2006, Kovačević was found guilty of crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, illegal detention, inhumane acts, and persecution. Kovačević was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. On 22 June 2007, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 

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’. However, regarding other claims (of environmental harm, of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and of consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights) the Court held that it could be assessed whether the plaintiffs should first exhaust legal remedies in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, it gave the plaintiffs one month to decide whether they wished to pursue these claims.  

On 14 December 2006, following a plea agreement with the Prosecutor, Joseph Nzabirinda pleaded guilty to one count of murder as crime against humanity, for aiding and abetting the killing of Pierre Murara and Joseph Mazimpaka. The Trial Chamber accepted his guilty plea.

On 23 February 2007, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR sentenced the Accused to seven years' imprisonment. Nzabirinda was given credit for the time spent in detention since his arrest on 21 December 2001.

For the purpose of sentencing the Accused, the Chamber considered the fact that Nzabirinda was an educated person and the fact that he abused his moral authority over the youth and population of his commune as he was held in high esteem due to his positions as Youth Organiser and successful businessman as aggravating factors.

His guilty plea together with his public expression of remorse; his family situation as a married man with children; his good character prior to the events of 1994, the lack of criminal records; and his assistance either moral, financial or material, to certain Tutsi victims were considered mitigating factors.