Search results

Prior to becoming President of the greater Kigali branch of the Mouvement Révolutionnaire National pour la Démocratie er le Développement (MRND) political party in 1993, the Accused, Laurent Semanza, served as Bourgmestre (mayor) of Bicumbi commune. On 15 May 2003, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found him guilty of complicity in genocide, extermination, torture and murder as crimes against humanity. Semanza submitted 22 grounds of appeal against his convictions. The Appeals Chamber dismissed his argument that he should be acquitted of all charges because the Trial Chamber was biased against him.

Instead, the Appeals Chamber accepted the Prosecutor’s argument and convicted Semanza for ordering, rather than aiding and abetting, the massacre of Tutsis at Musha church. Because the Accused had more serious culpability for the crimes at the church, the Appeals Chamber increased his sentence from 15 to 25 years  on Counts 7 and 13 of the indictment. More specifically, the Chamber affirmed the conviction for genocide charges and increased his sentence by 10 years for ordering the murder, torture and rape of Tutsi civilians at the church. The Appeals Chamber also reversed the Trial Chamber’s acquittal on the charges of serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. Semanza was sentenced to a total of 35 years imprisonment. 

On 1 December 2003, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR sentenced Kajelijeli to two concurrent life terms for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and to an additional 15 years imprisonment for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. All three sentences were to run concurrently.

The Appeals Chamber overthrew Kajelijeli's cumulative convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity under Counts 2 and 6 insofar as they were based upon a finding of command responsibility. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber was required to take its finding on Kajelijeli’s superior position (Article 6(3)) into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had done so. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.

However, the Appeals Chamber ruled that in view of the serious violations of his fundamental rights during his arrest and detention in Benin and at the UN detention facility from 5 June 1998 to 6 April 1999, the two life sentences and the 15 year sentences which were to run concurrently imposed by the Trial Chamber should be converted into a single sentence of imprisonment for 45 years. The Appeals Chamber ordered that Kajelijeli be given credit for time already served in detention.

Julio Simón was a member of the Argentinean Federal Police during the military dictatorship of 1976-1983 and had been charged with kidnapping, torture, and forced disappearance of persons. Julio Simón argued as his defence that he benefited of immunity from prosecution under the Amnesty Laws of 1986-1987.

In 2001 a lower court had declared the Amnesty Laws unconstitutional. After successive appeals the issue came before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Amnesty Laws were unconstitutional and void for several reasons. First, since the adoption of the Amnesty Laws, international human rights law developed principles that prohibited states from making laws aimed at avoiding the investigation of crimes against humanity and the prosecution of the responsible people. By incorporating the ACHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into the Constitution, Argentina assumed the duty to prosecute crimes against humanity under international law. Because the Amnesty Laws were designed to leave serious human rights violations unpunished, they violated these treaties and the Constitution of Argentina. Moreover, in the Barrios Altos v. Peru case the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that states should not establish any measures that would prevent the  investigation and prosecution of serious human rights violations.

In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics.

The Court of Appeals agreed, refusing to differentiate between this particular alleged decision and the general tendencies of foreign policy in 1970. It therefore confirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the Constitution had provided Congress with sufficient instruments to check the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy. It should be left to politicians to answer political questions, the Court reasoned, not to judges.