Search results

On 1 December 2003, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR delivered its judgment on the case against Juvénal Kajelijeli, former bourgmestre (mayor) of Mukingo. In its verdict on the 11-count indictment, the Tribunal found him guilty on three counts: genocide (count 2); direct and public incitement to commit genocide (count 4); and, extermination as a crime against humanity (count 6).

He was sentenced for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity with imprisonment for the remainder of his life, and with 15 years imprisonment for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. The sentences would be served concurrently. He was given credit of five years, five months and 25 days for time already spent in custody.

The Accused was acquitted of the following three counts: conspiracy to commit genocide (count 1); rape as a crime against humanity (count 7); and other inhumane acts of crimes against humanity (count 9). Earlier, on 13 September 2002, following a Defence motion, the Tribunal found that the Accused was not guilty of the two counts of war crimes—i.e. the charge of violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons (count 10); and causing outrages upon personal dignity (count 11). 

Lieutenant Colonel Tharcisse Muvunyi was the former Commander of the Rwandan military school, École des sous-officiers (ESO). On 12 September 2006, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found him guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (other inhumane acts). The Chamber acquitted him of rape as a crime against humanity and of the alternative charge of complicity in genocide.

The Chamber took into account the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced Muvunyi to 25 years of imprisonment.  Aggravating factors considered by the Chamber were the ethnic separation and subsequent killing of orphan children at the Groupe Scolaire by soldiers under the Muvunyi's command in collaboration with civilian militia. In addition, the fact that Muvunyi had chastised the bourgmestre (mayor) of the Nyakizu community for hiding a Tutsi man, who was later killed by an armed Hutu mob under Muvunyi’s instructions, was also considered an aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors taken into account were the good character of Muvunyi prior to 1994, his family status, the fact that he had spent most of his life working for the defence of his country and that he was regarded as a highly respected and devout person. 

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

The Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The Court of Appeals considered that these are the “reasonably available information in the possession of the U.S. Government”, without, however, hindering the Government’s ability to subject highly sensitive information to a protective order (meaning that the inspection of available information should be allowed to the detainees counsel with the exception of certain highly sensitive information, which will be available to the Court only).

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. Whereas the District Court in first instance had granted the corporations’ motion to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed. The District Court had ruled that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for jurisdiction. The majority of the panel disagreed, though for different reasons: one judge relied on international law to substantiate this, another solely relied on national law. A third judge dissented, arguing that this case should not be allowed to proceed, among other things because of fierce opposition from both South Africa and the US.

At the beginning of 2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.

On 21 February 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.

The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2008.