Search results

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan. Having been unsuccessful before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. By its decision of 28 June 2005, the Court of Appeals once again dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine as they would require the Courts to interpret treaties concluded between foreign States. 

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanzigas) is the widow of former Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana whose death on 6 April 1994 marked the beginning of the Rwandan genocide that was to result in the death of some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the lapse of a few months. Agathe Habyarimana is frequently regarded as one of the powers behind Juvénal habyarimana’s Presidencey and as part of the inner circle responsible for the planification and organisation of the Rwandan genocide. On 9 April 1994, she was airlifted to France.

In July 2004, she applied for refugee status but her application was denied by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). The rejection was confirmed on appeal by the Appeals Commission for Refugees in February 2007.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, Agathe Habyarimana sought to prove that the Appeals Commission had committed an error in law and in fact when it concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990 and ultimately denied her request to overturn the rejection of her request for refugee status. The Conseil d’Etat rejected the appeal by a decision of 16 October 2009.

Between 1999 and 2003, Ituri  (Democratic Republic of Congo - DRC) was the scene of a violent conflict between the Lendu, Ngiti and Hema ethnic groups. The Hema-dominated Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) seized control of Bunia, the district capital, in August 2002. On the road between Bunia and the border with Uganda lies the strategically important town of Bogoro, with a UPC military camp in the middle of the town. On 24 February 2003 a Ngiti militia attacked Bogoro, aiming to drive out or eliminate the UPC camp as well as the Hema population. Numerous civilians were murdered and/or raped and the town was partly destroyed.

During this time, Germain Katanga was President of the Ngiti militia and Commander or Chief of Aveba. As such, he formally exercised authority over the attackers; therefore he was indicted by the ICC for participating in the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Bogoro attack.

The Trial Chamber found that Katanga, while formally President, did not have full operational command over all fighting forces and commanders. Therefore he was acquitted of some of the crimes committed. However, since he had provided indispensable logistical aid (providing arms and transportation), he had enabled the militia to commit the crimes. He knew of their intent and intentionally contributed to the perpetration of the crimes; as such, the Chamber found him guilty, as accessory, of the crime against humanity of murder and the war crimes of murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging. 

On 23 May 2014, the Court sentenced Katanga to 12 years' imprisonment with credit for time served in the ICC's detention centre, approximately 7 years.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment.

The Appeals Chamber denied Duško Tadić’s appeal on all grounds. It did allow, however, the Prosecution’s appeal, reversing the judgment of Trial Chamber II and entering convictions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber also held that an act carried out for the purely personal motives of the perpetrator can constitute a crime against humanity. Furthermore, Trial Chamber II erred in finding that all crimes against humanity require discriminatory intent. 

The issue of sentencing was referred to a Trial Chamber.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber.

Trial Chamber IIbis considered that Tadić’s awareness of, and enthusiastic support for, the attacks on the non-Serb civilian population of Prijedor were aggravating circumstances.  Trial Chamber IIbis found that Tadić’s good behaviour in the United Nations Detention Unit and his personal circumstances were mitigating factors. 

Furthermore, Trial Chamber IIbis held that a crime against humanity is more serious than a war crime due to its widespread or systematic scale and the quantity of the crimes. 

Tadić was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.