Search results

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

Manickavasagam Suresh fled from Sri Lanka to Canada, was granted a refugee status there, but was ultimately denied a permanent status as it was alleged that he supported the Tamil Tigers. Since Canada considered the Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organisation, it started the procedure to deport Suresh to Sri Lanka. Suresh went to court, stating, among other things, that deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement. The Court disagreed, stating, most importantly, that the Minister was allowed to enter into a balancing act between national security and Suresh’s individual rights. The Court did not consider the result of this balancing act to be unreasonable, given the evidence of the Tamil Tigers’ activities and Suresh role therein. Also, the Court stated that Suresh had not established ‘substantial grounds’ that he would be subjected to torture. 

After the referendum on the independence of East Timor from Indonesia, violence erupted between pro-independence and pro-integration groups. On September 6, 1999 the Ave Maria church in Suai, in the Kovalima regency, in which civilians were taking refuge, was attacked by pro-integration militias Laksaur and Mahidi. The militias entered the church with homemade firearms and sharp weapons, killing 27 people.

At the time of the attack on the church in Suai, Herman Sedyono, an Indonesian Army Officer, was the regent or Chief of Kovalima regency and as such the head of government and the head of the regional authorities.

Before the attack a meeting took place at the official residence of Herman Sedyono. Herman Sedyono and the four other accused, Lilik Kushardianto,  Ahmad Syamsuddin, Sugito (Indonesian military officials) and Gatot Subyakto (a police officer) were all present at the incident at the Suai Church.

The Court found that grave human rights violations, in the form of murder as a crime against humanity, had taken place at the Suai Church. The crimes against humanity were committed by militia groups Laksaur and Mahidi. The Court found insufficient proof that the accused were responsible for the attacks on the basis of command responsibility. With regard to Herman Sedyono and Gatot Subyakto, the Court found that they were not military commanders or persons that effectively act as military commanders, as Sedyono was in function of head of the government and Subyakto was a police officer. The Court concluded that there was no organisational relation between the militias and the accused and that the accused had no effective control over the militias, so that the accused could not be held responsible for their actions. 

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations reignited. President Habyariamana’s political party, the Mouvement Républicain National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) and its youth militia wing, the Interahamwe, began perpetrating a number of widespread abuses against Tutsis and moderate Hutu’s as punishment for what many perceived to be the deliberate death of the former Hutu president.

Georges Rutaganda was a member of the MRND and the Second Vice President of the Interahamwe since 1991. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that he had used his position of authority over the Interahamwe to distribute weapons, order the separation of the Hutu from the Tutsi and direct the massacre of thousands of Tutsis, particularly in connection with incidents at the Amgar garage and the Technical College, ETO. He was convicted of genocide and murder and extermination as crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal by both the Prosecution and counsel for Rutaganda, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify the law applicable to the special intent for the crime of genocide and the nexus requirement for war crimes. As a result of its findings in the latter area, the Appeals Chamber entered two new convictions for murder as a war crime, the first conviction of this kind before the Tribunal. Rutaganda’s sentence was confirmed and he was transferred to Benin where he died in prison on 11 October 2010.

The Ad Hoc Tribunal found the defendant guilty of grave human rights violations in the form of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. Adam Damiri was the most senior and last of 18 military men and civilians to be brought before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal, which has sentenced only six of the 18, none of whom served any time in prison as part of their sentences. Damiri’s verdict effectively brought the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal to a close.

The judgement was deemed rather controversial by many human rights organizations. Firstly, because of what was considered a lenient judgment entered against the defendant, and secondly, the subsequent overturning of the judgment and the release of the defendant one year later. Human Rights Watch repeatedly requested that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commission a report by a group of experts to review the work of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR) and that of the Ad Hoc Tribunal regarding the situation in East Timor in 1999.

The rulings of the Ad Hoc Tribunal were also deemed as sign that there was a lack of political will in Indonesia to holds its highest military servicemen accountable for their actions under international humanitarian law. Indonesia has also been heavily criticised for allowing a convicted human rights abuser - though this judgment was later overturned - to be involved in yet another conflict, after Damiri was re-assigned to another province of Indonesia in order to fight another secessionist movement.

In July 1982, a convoy carrying the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was fired upon by unknown individuals as it was visiting the town of Al Dujail. In response to what the President perceived as an assassination attempt but which did not injure anyone, a systematic attack was launched against the residents of Al Dujail as they were fired upon from aircraft and their property was destroyed. A Revolutionary Court sentenced 148 residents to death without trial for their alleged involvement in the assassination attempt. Of those that were hanged, the Tribunal identified a number of children. Countless others died in detention, as a result of torture at the hand of the Investigation Services, or from malnutrition, lack of access to medical care and poor hygienic conditions.

At first instance, the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted seven of the eight defendants charged, including Saddam Hussein who was sentenced to death by hanging along with his brother, Barazan Ibrahim, the head of the Intelligence Services. On appeal, the Appeals Commission of the High Tribunal upheld the convictions and sentences and found cause to increase the sentence of Taha Yassin Ramadan, Deputy Prime Minister and General Commander of the Popular Army, to death. Since the judgement, the Iraqi High Tribunal has come under criticism for the alleged unfairness of its proceedings owing, partly, to the continued interference of the Iraqi government in the trial.