Search results

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). It does so on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach the town of Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case.

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations that had previously resulted in a civil war in the early 1990s. An Interim Government was established, which developed a plan to eradicate the Tutsi “enemy” with the use of the armed forces and various civilian militia groups including the feared Interahamwe.

The six Accused in the present case all represented military, political or civilian authorities in Butare commune: Nyiramasuhuko was the Minister of Family and Women’s Development; Nsabimana served as the prefect of Butare from April until 17 June 1994; Nteziryayo was a member of the Ministry of the Interior; Kanyabashi was the mayor of Ngoma commune; Ndayambaje was the mayor of Muganza commune and Ntahobali was a leader of a unit of the Interahamwe. Following the replacement of the former prefect of Butare by Nsabimana on 20 April 1994, large scale massacres of Tutsi took place in Butare commune. Thousands were slaughtered with machetes and grenades at Mugombwe Church, Kabuye Hill, Kabakobwe Hill and Matyazo Clinic. In line with the Interim Government’s policy, roadblocks were set up at which Tutsi could be identified, separated, abducted, raped and killed by soldiers and Interhamwe alike. Megaphone announcements were heard throughout Butare town encouraging the Hutu to flush out and eradicate their Tutsi enemy.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted each of the Accused variously for genocide, cnspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement of genocide, the crimes against humanity of extermination, persecution and rape and the war crimes of violence to life and outrage supon personal dignity. Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali and Ndayambaje were sentenced to life imprisonment; Kanybashi, Nteziryayo and Nsabimana to 35, 30 and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively.

The case is currently on appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR. 

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 

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.

Mr. Eyad Al-Gharib is a Syrian citizen who was a member of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate until 2012. Due to his conduct during the Arab Spring protests in Syria, he was found guilty by a German court of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in the form of torture and deprivation of liberty and sentences to 4.5 years of imprisonment. 

The offences in question occurred in Branch 251 and Section 40, which are part of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. In September or October 2011, a demonstration took place in the town of Douma. Members of Branch 251 and Section 40, including Mr. Al-Gharib, were deployed to deal with the demonstration. The officers shot at the demonstrators, and when the demonstrators tried to flee, the security forces, among them Mr. Al-Gharib, chased and arrested a large number of them and forced them into waiting buses. Thirty demonstrators were then taken to Branch 251, escorted by Mr. Al-Gharib. They were beaten on the busses and upon their arrival. They were then held in Branch 251 for at least several days. The conditions of detention were typical for the Branch: severely overcrowded underground detention rooms, partly without daylight; scarce food; terrible hygienic conditions; no information of the reason of detention or its duration; and, no information for the relatives of the detainees regarding their fate. The vast majority of the detainees were subjected to systematic physical violence during their detention and interrogation. 

This judgment was the first court decision against a former agent of the Syrian government regarding the government-led crimes against humanity in Syria. This in turn permitted the Court to shed light on the repressive practices of the Syrian State apparatus.