Search results

The complaint against Radovan Karadžić was filed by victims and survivors of the crimes committed in Bosnia during the Bosnian War in 1992-1995. They requested compensation for the suffering they have experienced. The crimes alleged include, but are not limited to rape, murder, beatings, and emotional distress.  

On 4 October 2000, the District Court ordered Radovan Karadžić to pay $4.5 billion in damages to the victims and survivors.

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.

On 11 April 2000, a Belgian investigating judge of the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, charging him with offences constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II (1977), and crimes against humanity. In the warrant, Mr Yerodia was accused of inciting racial hatred in various speeches in the DRC in August 1998, which had contributed to the massacre of several hundred persons and, thus, he was charged as perpetrator or co-perpetrator of these crimes. The arrest warrant, which asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Mr Yerodia to Belgium, was transmitted to the DRC in June 2000 and simultaneously circulated internationally through Interpol. On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice ruled that the issuance and circulation of the arrest warrant violated Belgium’s international obligations towards the DRC in that Belgium failed to respect, and infringed, Mr Yerodia’s immunity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the inviolability enjoyed by him under international law. The Court required Belgium to cancel the arrest warrant and inform as such the authorities to whom it was circulated.

Abilio Soares was governor of East Timor at the time violence broke out in East Timor before, during and after the referendum on independence of Indonesia.

On 20 February 2002 he was indicted on two charges of crimes against humanity: murder and assault/persecution. He was charged with command responsibility for the failings and actions of his subordinates and militias, in relation to events during which anti-independence militias committed massacres, such as in the church in Liquica on 6 April 1999, at the house of pro-independence leader Manuel Carrascalao on 17 April 1999, at the residence of the Bishop of Belo on 6 September 1999 and in the church in Suai on 6 September 1999. In each one of these instances, he was accused of not having exercised his authority in order to prevent these crimes from taking place.

The Court considered that, under command responsibility, Abilio Soares was criminally responsible for the human rights violations perpetrated by his subordinates. To come to this conclusion, the Court considered the following elements: his subordinates were under Soares’ effective control and authority, but he did not exert appropriate and proper control over them;  Abilio Soares was aware, or consciously disregarded information relating to these events, as he was informed of these events by subordinates; and that Soares took no action against those district heads under his control who had committed the murders and assaults (for example to prevent or stop the acts or surrender the perpetrators to authorities for investigation and prosecution).

The Court sentenced Abilio Soares to 3 years’ imprisonment, significantly lower than the minimum sentence of 10 years. 

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.

The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.