Search results

Following violent clashes between two groups, one in favor of independence of East Timor and one against it, approximately two thousand pro-independence activists seek refuge in the church of Liquiça. An attack by an anti-independence militia causes the death and injury of many. It is claimed that several soldiers took part in the attacks. The commander of some of these soldiers, Intelligence Task Force officer Sudrajat, was present in Liquiça. Can he be held responsible for what happened?

Not according to the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor. The involvement of his personnel could not be established and the Tribunal considered the militia to be completely separate from the military. Thus, the Tribunal established that he had had no effective control over those who actually committed the crimes against humanity. Neither did it consider proven that he assisted in what happened. According to the Tribunal, he was there to look for a solution and tried to stop the actual attack to the best of his abilities. Sudrajat was acquitted, which added to the international community’s concern about the effectiveness of the Tribunal.

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).