Search results

The Accused, Jean-Paul Akayesu, was the mayor of Taba, Rwanda. On 2 September 1998, Trial Chamber I of the Tribunal found him guilty of nine out of fifteen Counts charging him with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions in the first ever trial before the Tribunal. His was the first conviction ever for genocide and it was the first time that an international tribunal ruled that rape and other forms of sexual violence could constitute genocide. It was also the first conviction of an individual for rape as a crime against humanity.

Akayesu appealed against his convictions and the sentence imposed on him. His principal ground of appeal was that he had not been represented by counsel of his choice. The Prosecution also presented four grounds of appeal.

The Appeals Chamber held that the right of appeal for an indigent person to be represented by a lawyer free of charge did not imply the right to select the advocate to be assigned to defend him. The Chamber underscored that in this case there had been an abuse of the right of an indigent accused to legal aid at the expense of the international community.

The other grounds of appeal, as well as Akayesu’s appeal against the life sentence imposed upon him were also rejected.

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of crimes were perpetrated against independence supporters by members of the Indonesian Armed forces and pro-autonomy militia groups.

The Accused, Mateus Tilman, was a member of the Ablai militia group. In September 1999, acting on the orders of the militia leader and joined by other individuals, the Accused proceeded to the home of a suspected independence supporter and that of his daughters. The homes were set alight using a petrol can, supplied by the Accused. As the residents started to flee, the unfortunate ones were attacked by the group with machetes and arrows, including a 12-year-old boy. Others escaped with burns.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of attempted murder and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment. His defence of duress was not accepted as the Panel found that he could have refused to join the militia or escaped thereafter. 

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.