Search results

The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1992. Shortly afterwards, a strategic plan was created with the aim to remove the non-Serb population from the newly proclaimed Bosnian Serb state. To this extent, the local police, the newly created army and Serb paramilitary groups engaged in a campaign of attacks resulting in the commission of crimes against the non-Serb population. During this time, Brđanin was the President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) Crisis Staff, which functioned as a center for cooperation between the Serb forces committing the crimes.

Trial Chamber II held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime of genocide was committed in the territory of the ARK. Therefore, Brđanin could not be found guilty on such charges.

However, the ARK Crisis Staff's decision to disarm the non-Serbs was found to have assisted and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime of torture, which led Trial Chamber II to find Brđanin guilty of aiding and abetting torture both as a crime against humanity and as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II furthermore found Brđanin guilty of other crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment.

In 1979, fourteen Burmese villagers filed a complaint against the oil company UNOCAL. They claimed that they suffered abuses including torture and rape during the construction of the Yadana Pipeline. UNOCAL allegedly assisted in the abuses perpetrated by the military government in Rangoon.

The Burmese villagers based their claim on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows US courts to decide cases in respect of foreign nationals for crimes that occurred outside of the US.

In the particular decision, the Superior Court held that even though one of the theories of the Burmese villagers was refused, the case was not dismissed and as a result, they were allowed to proceed with their further theories. On 14 September 2004, the defendants’ motion for judgment was denied.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision of 8 November 2004 found that Hamdan could not be tried by the military commission until such time as a competent tribunal has determined whether he is entitled to prisoner of war status. Only in the event that the outcome of such a determination is negative may Hamdan be tried by military commission, provided that the military commission amends its rules which currently preclude the presence of the accused at certain hearings of his own trial. Without such amendments, trial by military commission would be unlawful. The decision is the first in a line of case law before the United States courts and military commissions in the case of Hamdan. 

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesians who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (a member of the Sakunar militia) intentionally stabbed one victim and severely beat another victim who was tied to a tree in plain view of other villagers. The Accused pleaded guilty to both charges and the Court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. His defence, that he was coerced into committing the crimes due to a fear of his superiors, failed to convince the Court, as he was not in imminent danger of death.

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesian’s who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (all members of the Sakunar militia) killed two independence supporters – one was attacked with a machete and the other was beaten to death. A third was also severely beaten in plain view of his entire village.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted all the Accused for the crimes against humanity of murder and other inhumane acts; Cab, Fuli and Lelan were sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, Cloe to 4 years. At sentencing, the Court considered that the Accused were victims of the circumstances themselves and attributed responsibility to the Indonesian Armed Forces who pitted local populations against each other in order to secure their power over the Timorese.