Search results

On 11 April 2000, a Belgian investigating judge of the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, charging him with offences constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II (1977), and crimes against humanity. In the warrant, Mr Yerodia was accused of inciting racial hatred in various speeches in the DRC in August 1998, which had contributed to the massacre of several hundred persons and, thus, he was charged as perpetrator or co-perpetrator of these crimes. The arrest warrant, which asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Mr Yerodia to Belgium, was transmitted to the DRC in June 2000 and simultaneously circulated internationally through Interpol. On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice ruled that the issuance and circulation of the arrest warrant violated Belgium’s international obligations towards the DRC in that Belgium failed to respect, and infringed, Mr Yerodia’s immunity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the inviolability enjoyed by him under international law. The Court required Belgium to cancel the arrest warrant and inform as such the authorities to whom it was circulated.

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.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. 

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the Accused of both charges, as it found none of his subordinates to have committed serious human rights abuses. In addition, the Tribunal found that the Accused has not disregarded important information and has acted in the best of his power to stop the human rights violations.

East Timor’s foreign minister described the judgment as ‘scandalous’, whereas activists in Indonesia considered the judgments of the Ad Hoc Tribunal to be “mock trials...[as] a result of pressure from the military.” Florendo de Jesus, one of the witnesses, testified that he had recognized several people among the attackers as TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) members, one of them being his own uncle. The public outrage, mostly taking place in East Timor, came as a consequence of a belief that the Ad Hoc Tribunal is failing to try the Indonesian commanders involved in the violence, as well as from the previous acquittals, specifically those of army Lieutenant Colonel Asep Kuswani, police Lieutenant Colonel Adios Salova and mayor Leonita Martins.

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the three defendants of the charges entered against them and found that the prosecution had not been able to establish a link between the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and Polri (Resort Police of the Police of Republic of Indonesia), on the one hand, and the BMP, on the other. The former were official governmental bodies, whereas the latter were militia. The judgment was publicly criticized as it was argued that the TNI and the riot police were indeed involved in the violence, including the killing of the 22 civilians.

On 21 February 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR delivered its unanimous judgment on the case of Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana. Gérard Ntakirutimana, a medical doctor practicing at the Mugonero Adventist hospital, was convicted of genocide and of crimes against humanity (murder). His father, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a senior pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist church in Mugonero was convicted of aiding and abetting in genocide.

The two Accused jointly faced two indictments, the “Mugonero” indictment with five counts and the “Bisesero” indictment with seven counts. Both indictments charged them with genocide, in the alternative complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide as well as crimes against humanity. The Accused allegedly participated in killings, attacks and caused serious bodily and mental harm to a large number of men, women and children who sought refuge in the Mugonero Adventist complex as well as in the area of Bisesero.

Pastor Ntakirutimana was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment while his son, Gérard, was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty five years. In both cases credit was given for the time they had already served in the United States and in Arusha.