skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: mothers srebrenica netherlands & un

> Refine results with advanced case search

358 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 44 of 72   next > last >>

Munyeshyaka: Procureur Général v. X. / General Prosecutor v. X. (Wenceslas Munyeshyaka)

Décision, 6 Jan 1998, Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, France


Kayishema & Ruzindana: The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana

Judgement / Sentence, 21 May 1999, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

The present case concerned two Accused, Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema, born in Kibuye Prefecture, Rwanda, was educated as a medical doctor and elected prefect of Kibuye in July 1992, a position which he held until July 1994. Ruzindana was also born in Kibuye prefecture and was a successful businessman.

The Prosecution charged Kayishema with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacre at the Catholic Church and Home St. Jean on 17 April 1994, in the massacre at the Stadium in Kibuye Town on about 18 April 1994, in the massacre at the Church in Mubuga on about 14 April 1994 and in the massacres in the area of Bisesero from about 9 April 1994 through 30 June 1994. The Prosecution charged Ruzindana with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination and other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacres in Bisesero.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR convicted Kayishema and Ruzindana on the counts of genocide and dismissed the other counts. The Chamber sentenced Kayishema to life imprisonment and Ruzindana to 25 years' imprisonment.


Musema: The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema

Judgement and Sentence, 27 Jan 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber I), Tanzania

The Accused, Alfred Musema, was director of the Gisovu Tea Factory in Kibuye Prefecture during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The Prosecutor alleged that on various occasions during April, May and June 1994, Musema transported armed attackers, including employees of the factory, to different locations in Gisovu and Gishyita communes and ordered them to attack Tutsis seeking refuge there. He also personally took part in such attacks and killings. The indictment against Musema was later amended to include charges that he committed various acts of rape and that he ordered and encouraged others to rape and kill Tutsi women.

With regard to certain allegations concerning specific attacks, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found that either the evidence presented was not sufficient or that Musema's alibi cast doubt on the Prosecution evidence. The Chamber was satisfied nevertheless that Musema had participated in attacks at Gitwa Hill, Rwirambo Hill, Muyira Hill and at Mumataba during late-April and mid-May and his alibi for that period was not accepted. The Chamber also found that he had raped a woman named Nyiramusugi and, by his example, encouraged others to rape her. For these acts, the Trial Chamber found Musema guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (extermination and rape) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  


Akayesu: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu

Judgment , 1 Jun 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

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.


Kayishema & Ruzindana: The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana

Judgement (Reasons), 1 Jun 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.


<< first < prev   page 44 of 72   next > last >>