Search results

Momčilo Krajišnik was found guilty by Trial Chamber I on multiple counts of crimes against humanity for his role in the 1991-1992 events in municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He appealed the decision, representing himself. The Appeals Chamber appointed a counsel as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist his case through the filing of an additional appeal in order to represent Krajišnik's interests.

The Appeals Chamber held that Trial Chamber I made errors with respect to the expansion of the crimes forming part of the joint criminal enterprise of the perpetrators and the manner in which Krajišnik could be held liable for them. Therefore, it acquitted Krajišnik of murder, extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected the arguments of the Prosecution, in which the latter argued that the sentence was not properly determined by Trial Chamber I, and should be raised to life imprisonment.

In light of the acquittals on several counts, the Appeals Chamber reduced Krajišnik's sentence from 27 years to 20 years of imprisonment.

Can a state be held legally responsible for not taking a strong stance against human rights violations committed by another state? In this case, a Palestinian human rights organization requested a UK court to give its legal opinion  about UK foreign policy, in relation to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip during the Winter of 2008/2009 (‘Operation Cast Lead’ or the ‘Gaza War’). The court most important statement was that it did not consider itself authorized to rule on foreign policy. According to the court, foreign policy is made by the government’s executive branch and it should remain within that exclusive domain.

In 1998 the Kosovo Liberation Army engaged in a campaign against civilians in Dukagjin, Kosovo. The three accused, Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj were indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in these crimes.

The Trial Chamber, however, found that only Brahimaj was guilty on two counts of war crimes.

The Appeals Chamber examined the findings of the Trial Chamber and the arguments of both the Prosecution and Brahimaj. It decided to grant the first ground and partially grant the third ground of appeal of the Prosecution. For the first ground, it held that the Trial Chamber failed to ensure that potentially important evidence will be presented during the trial. Therefore, it ordered the re-trial of the three accused for certain counts. For the third ground, it ruled that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings relating to the crime of cruel treatment. Although it ruled that this crime did occur, the Appeals Chamber found Balaj not liable for it, and upheld the acquittal.

Out of the 19 grounds of appeal of Brahimaj, the Appeals Chamber only partially granted one, on the basis of errors in the Trial Chamber's findings with regard to the charges on torture.

Šljivančanin was in charge of a security force within the Yugoslav People’s Army that moved prisoners from the Vukovar hospital to Ovčara, where they were tortured and murdered. In the earlier phases of his trial, Šljivančanin was found guilty on counts of torture as a war crime and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Later, the Appeals Chamber extended his conviction to the count of murder as war crime and sentenced him to 17 years’ imprisonment. The reason behind this decision was a conversation between Šljivančanin and his superior which proved the former's intentions to contribute to the murdering of the prisoners.

In 2010, however, a new witness contacted the Defence team of Šljivančanin, expressing his intentions to testify about the conversation in question. According to his testimony, the conversation did not evidence that Šljivančanin had the required intention. 

The Appeals Chamber accepted the testimony of the witness as constituting a new fact for the purposes of the trial and allowed the review motion.

After closely considering the testimony and the arguments brought by the Prosecution against the testimony, the Chamber concluded that the statements of the witness were credible. Accordingly, it ruled that the conviction on the count of murder had to be vacated and the sentence was reduced to 10 years of imprisonment.

In the final trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Accused was Augustin Ngirabatware, the Minister of Planning from 1990 until July 1994 in the Rwandan government and an influential figure by virtue of his education and wealthy background. Indicted on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, the Trial Chamber found that Ngirabatware had actively espoused the killing of the Tutsi population in Rwanda by delivering speeches to large assembled crowds encouraging them to man roadblocks and kill Tutsis. He distributed weapons to the Interahamwe militia and encouraged them to perpetrate crimes against the Tutsi population. Ngirabatware was convicted of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment on 20 December 2012.