Search results

Ildephonse Hategekimana was born in Mugina Commne, Gitarama Prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, during the events in Rwanda, he held the rank of lieutenant in the Rwandan army. As determined by Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal, during the relevant period covered by the indictment, Hategekimana was the commander of the Ngoma Military Camp in Butare Prefecture.

On 7 September 2007, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal requested the transfer of Hategekimana’s case for trial before Rwandan courts. On 19 June 2008 the Chamber rejected the request due to fears that the Accused would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Therefore, the case was tried before Trial Chamber II of the ICTR. On 16 March 2009, Hategekimana was found guilty by the Trial Chamber of genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and rape as a crime against humanity for his role in ordering the killing of Tutsi refugees at the Ngoma church. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hategekimana appealed the Trial judgment on seven grounds, challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of Appeal and affirmed Hategekimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. 

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. Although the Court of Appeals had confirmed both the government’s and Sosa’s liability, the Supreme Court rejected it. Regarding the government’s liability, it argued that the US could not be held responsible for actions committed abroad, even though Alvarez-Machain’s arrest had been planned in California. Regarding Sosa, the Supreme Court held that Alvarez-Machain’s arbitrary detention was not a violation of the law of nations. The latter term, according to the Supreme Court, should be defined narrowly. It considered arbitrary detention not specific enough to be within the scope of the law of nations. 

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

After the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989, the country was controlled by warlords. Faryadi Sarwar Zardad joined the political and paramilitary organisation Hezb-e Islami, founded in 1977 by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In 1992, Zardad was in control of a checkpoint located in the town Sarobi located on the most important route between Kabul and Pakistan. He also exercised command over more than 1000 men who were said to have terrorised, tortured, imprisoned, blackmailed and killed civilians passing by the route. Zardad was found guilty of torture and hostage taking in Afghanistan and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux. In the present decision, the Court held that the SNCF were acting under the command of the German authorities and could not therefore be held responsible.