Search results

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). 

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  

Marko Samardžija was the commander of the 3rd Company of the Sanica Battalion within the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. He has been accused of ordering soldiers under his command that the Bosniak (Muslim) men from the settlements of Brkići and Balagića Brdo (in the Ključ Municipality) leave their houses. Men older than 18 and younger than 60 were then consequently murdered in groups of 5 to 10. This resulted in the deaths of at least 144 Bosniak men.

While taking into account the ICTY and ICTR case law, and while pointing out that the issue of legality was not violated, the Court determined that Samardžija assisted in the commission of crimes against humanity. As a result, on 3 November 2006, the Trial Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Marko Samardžija guilty of crimes against humanity (murder) and sentenced him to 26 years’ imprisonment

In 1988, the Iraqi government under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, launched a military campaign against the Kurdish population residing in northern Iraq. In eight operations from February until September of that year, both conventional and chemical weapons were deployed against the citizens of Kurdish villages resulting in the deaths and injury of hundreds of thousands. Others were executed in the following raids, their homes were looted and entire villages were burned to the ground. Others still were transported to prison camps where they were starved and detained in inhumane conditions. This campaign became known as the Al Anfal campaign and was the subject of the Iraqi High Tribunal’s second case  (the first one being the Al Dujail-trial). 

Seven defendants, including Saddam Hussein and his cousin, nicknamed Chemical Ali, were brought before the Court. Charges against Hussein were dropped when he was executed in the course of the trial as a result of his conviction in another proceeding. By a verdict of 24 June 2007, the Tribunal convicted five of the remaining six defendants, one of whom was acquitted for lack of evidence. Three, including Chemical Ali and two military commanders, received death sentences; the others received cumulative sentences that essentially amounted to life imprisonment. The present decision by the Appellate Chamber of the Tribunal confirmed the trial verdict and dismissed all appeals.

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. Whereas the District Court in first instance had granted the corporations’ motion to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed. The District Court had ruled that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for jurisdiction. The majority of the panel disagreed, though for different reasons: one judge relied on international law to substantiate this, another solely relied on national law. A third judge dissented, arguing that this case should not be allowed to proceed, among other things because of fierce opposition from both South Africa and the US.