Search results

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber.

Trial Chamber IIbis considered that Tadić’s awareness of, and enthusiastic support for, the attacks on the non-Serb civilian population of Prijedor were aggravating circumstances.  Trial Chamber IIbis found that Tadić’s good behaviour in the United Nations Detention Unit and his personal circumstances were mitigating factors. 

Furthermore, Trial Chamber IIbis held that a crime against humanity is more serious than a war crime due to its widespread or systematic scale and the quantity of the crimes. 

Tadić was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber. Trial Chamber IIbis sentenced Tadić to 25 years of imprisonment. Tadić appealed against both the sentencing judgment of Trial Chamber II as well as that of Trial Chamber IIbis.

The Appeals Chamber found that Trial Chamber II erred when it ordered that the term of the sentence start after a final determination of an appeal as well as when it did not give credit for the time Tadić spent in custody in Germany.

The Appeals Chamber also upheld Tadić’s argument that crimes against humanity do not attract higher sentence than war crimes. The Appeals Chamber revised the sentence imposed by Trial Chamber IIbis to 20 years of imprisonment.

The complaint against Radovan Karadžić was filed by victims and survivors of the crimes committed in Bosnia during the Bosnian War in 1992-1995. They requested compensation for the suffering they have experienced. The crimes alleged include, but are not limited to rape, murder, beatings, and emotional distress.  

On 4 October 2000, the District Court ordered Radovan Karadžić to pay $4.5 billion in damages to the victims and survivors.

Akhmed Zakaev was an envoy of the Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov. Zakaev was arrested in the UK in 2002 and his extradition was requested by the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation alleged that during the First Chechen War (1994-1996), Zakaev committed murder, wounding, false imprisonment (imprisonment not made in accordance with the law), and conspiring. On 13 November 2003, the Bow Street Magistrates' Court declined to extradite Zakaev because the Court feared he would be subjected to torture and would not receive a fair trial if he would be brought back to the Russian Federation.

In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this.  Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics. Also, the Court held that Kissinger had acted within the constraints of his position of National Security Adviser and that therefore the defendant should be the United States, not Kissinger personally. However, the Court held that the United States enjoyed immunity for the alleged crimes. Therefore, the case was dismissed.