Search results

Frans van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer. Van Anraat was convicted by the District Court of The Hague as accessory to war crimes committed by Hussein and his men. His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal of The Hague and the Supreme Court of The Netherlands. He was sentenced to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The present decision is the result of Van Anraat's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts to try his case. His application was rejected as the European Court of Human Rights found, notably, that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in warfare was a crime under customary international law at the time the applicant supplied thiodiglycol to Iraq and he could therefore rightly be convicted of violations of this custom of war.

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.

During the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, the United States sprayed toxic herbicides in areas of South Vietnam. Herbicides were considered effective in meeting important US and allied military objectives in Vietnam. Vietnamese nationals and a Vietnamese organisation representing the victims of Agent Orange brought a case before US court against several US-registered companies that were deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War. They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides.

The Plaintiffs brought the case to court under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants the district courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien claiming damages for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty of the United States. They also asserted claims grounded in domestic tort law. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

The District court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of international law because Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) was used to protect United States troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations. On 22 February 2008, the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision.

The village of Kilwa in Katanga province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was the site of combat in October 2004. Having come under the control of rebel forces from Zambia belonging to the Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Katanga (MRLK), the troops of the Congolese Army (FARDC) were ordered by President Kabila to regain control over the village. After three hours of heavy shelling on 15 October 2004, the FARDC forces succeeded.

During the take over, it is alleged that they committed acts of pillaging, wanton destruction as well as illegal detentions and summary executions. Some 70 villagers were killed. The present decision was rendered by the Katanga Military Court after proceedings widely described by international observers as unfair and biased by political interferences and procedural irregularities. In its verdict, the Court found the commander in charge of the attack, Adémar Ilunga, and three soldiers guilty for the illegal arrest, detention, and murder of two persons. These crimes, however, were not committed during the attack of Kilwa. All the other accused were acquitted, the Court having concluded the victims were members of a rebel group killed during the attack. The Australian company, Anvil Mining Congo, was also accused, FARDC soldiers having used company property, including a plane, to lead the attack and commit the alleged crimes. However, the Court concluded that the FARDC had requisitioned the vehicles and acquitted Anvil and three of its employees.

During the armed conflict that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serb forces including the Army of the Republika Srpska (RS), the police and paramilitary forces perpetrated attacks against the civilian population in the Rogatica municipality by detaining, murdering, raping and abusing persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity. The Accused, Radisav Ljubinac, was a member of the RS living in Rogatica in 1995.

By a judgment of 25 April 2007, Section I of the War Crimes Chamber in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for his role in the forcible transfer of civilians and their maltreatment at the Rasadnik camp in Rogatica. By the present verdict, the Appellate Panel of the War Crimes Chamber confirmed the verdict of Section I and dismissed the appeals of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Defence. It amended the verdict only so far as to reflect Section I’s failure to dismiss a charge, which the Prosecutor had dropped during the trial.