Search results

The present case concerned the role of Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza in the Radio television libre des mille collines (RTLM), that of Hassan Ngeze in the publication of the Kangura newspaper, as well as Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s involvement in the Coalition pour la défense de la République (CDR) and the role of Hassan Ngeze in the killing of Tutsis in Gisenyi prefecture on 7 April 1994.

Trial Chamber I originally found the Accused guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity and sentenced each Accused to a single term of life imprisonment. However, it has reduced the sentence imposed on Barayagwiza to 35 years, taking into account the violation of his rights.

The Accused appealed their convictions and sentence. The Appeals Chamber reversed certain findings of the Trial Chamber and affirmed others. With regard Nahimana, the Appeals Chamber reduced his sentence to 30 years’ imprisonment. Barayagwiza’s sentence was reduced to 32 years of imprisonment. Finally, the Appeals Chamber substituted Ngeze’s life sentence by a prison term of 35 years.  

On 9 November 2004, Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was serving in  Iraq as a member of the US Armed Forces. Nazario was leading a squad of 13 Marines on house-to-house searches. During these searches, Nazario allegedly killed two Iraqis, and encouraged two squad members to shoot two others. The alleged acts took place in Fallujah, Iraq.

In 2007, Jose Louis Nazario was brought before the US District Court in California. He was the first veteran to be tried in a civilian US court for alleged war crimes in Iraq.

The defence argued that there was no evidence of a deceased person, nor had the government provided a name or a sufficient description of any of the alleged victims. Deliberating in less than six hours, the jury found Nazario not guilty of manslaughter or assault. Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was acquitted on all charges on 28 August 2008.

During the Rwanda genocide, Bikindi was a famous singer and composer, and the leader of a ballet troupe, the Irindiro.

The Prosecution charged Bikindi with six Counts: conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide or, alternatively, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, murder and persecution as crimes against humanity.

On 2 December 2008, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found the Accused guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide for his calls to exterminate Tutsi at the end of June 1994 on the Kivumu-Kayone road and acquitted him on all other Counts. The Chamber further concluded that there were no mitigating factors, and that the fact that the Accused had used his influence to incite genocide was an aggravating factor. The Chamber sentenced Bikindi to 15 years of imprisonment. 

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the case reached the Navy-Marines Corps of Criminal Appeals, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCCA confirmed the previous ruling by the Trial Judiciary, stating that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of ‘unlawful command influence’. According to the NMCCA, the government had only attempted to disprove that Ewers directly influenced key figures in the circle of the prosecutor, while not addressing whether the prosecution’s legal advisors might have been influenced by Ewers. 

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this time sitting en banc (before all judges of the court), dismissed Arar’s claims for damages on the grounds that it rests upon the Congress to decide on whether such a civil remedy can be made possible and it is not the duty of the judges to decide on whether compensation could be sought.