Search results

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

By a decision of 17 June 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, the former mayor of Rusumo commune, of genocide and crimes against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber found that Gacumbitsi had used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. On appeal by the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify a number of important areas of law including the law applicable to instigation and rape as a crime against humanity. The Chamber dismissed all of Gacumbitsi’s grounds of appeal but entered new convictions for murder as a crime against humanity. Gacumbitsi’s sentence was increased to life imprisonment.

On 31 July 1992, in Novo Selo (Kotor Varoš Municipality), Marko Škrobić, as a member of the Kotor Varoš HVO (Croat Defence Council) unit, entered the house of Glamocak family, together with four other armed persons. He ordered Boro Glamocak and his family to leave the house immediately. He also forced Stojko Glamocak, Boro’s father, out of the adjacent building and marched the family into the direction of the village of Ravne. On the way to that village, Marko Škrobić shot Stojko with a pistol, leading to his death.

The Court relied heavily on the testimonies of Boro Glamocak and his wife and daughters. The Court discussed how it weighed the reliability and credibility of the eyewitness testimonies. Through the evidence entered into the record, Marko Škrobić was found guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

Can a state be held legally responsible for not taking a strong stance against human rights violations committed by another state? In this case, a Palestinian human rights organization requested a UK court to give its legal opinion  about UK foreign policy, in relation to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip during the Winter of 2008/2009 (‘Operation Cast Lead’ or the ‘Gaza War’). The court most important statement was that it did not consider itself authorized to rule on foreign policy. According to the court, foreign policy is made by the government’s executive branch and it should remain within that exclusive domain.

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.

On 14 February 2005, explosives equivalent to 2500 kgs of TNT were detonated in Downtown Beirut, killing former PM Rafik Hariri and 21 others and injuring 226 people.

In its judgement of 18 August 2020, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Ayyash guilty of co-perpetrating conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, committing a terrorist act by an explosive device, intentional homicide of Mr. Rafik Hariri with premeditation and by explosive materials, and attempted intentional homicide of 226 persons with premeditation by using explosive materials. The Court’s reasoning was based on the connection of Mr. Ayyash to mobile Red 741, which had been proven to have monitored Mr. Hariri’s movements and prepared for the attack.

The Trial Chamber, however, acquitted Messrs. Oneissi and Sabra for lack of sufficient evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, their complicity to the attack, and acquitted Mr. Merhi for insufficient factual evidence surrounding his actions.