Search results

The accused were all members of the Vukovar Territorial Defence force (TO) or of the volunteer unit called “Leva Supoderica”.

On 18 November 1991, members of the Croatian armed forces surrendered themselves to the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). As a result, they had to enjoy certain rights and protection under international law because they were prisoners of war. For instance, they had to be treated humanely, should not be beaten or killed. Nevertheless, they were taken to the Ovčara farm in the Vukovar municipality on 20 and 21 November 1991, where they were brutally beaten, injured, and killed by members of the TO force (including the accused). Approximately 200 Croatians were killed at the Ovčara farm.

From March 1981 through July 1994 André Ntagerura served as a minister in the Rwandan Government. His last position was as Minister of Transport and Communications in the interim government. From 4 July 1992 to 17 July 1994, Emmanuel Bagambiki served as the prefect of Cyangugu. Samuel Imanishimwe, a lieutenant in the Rwandan Armed Forces, served as the acting commander of the Cyangugu military camp from October 1993 until he left Rwanda in July 1994.

On 7 July 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR reduced Samuel Imanishimwe’s sentence from 27 to 12 years imprisonment and recalled that it had confirmed the acquittals of André Ntagerura, former Minister of Transport and Communications, and Emmanuel Bagambiki, former Prefect of Cyangugu on 8 February 2006. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber granted Imanishimwe’s first ground of appeal, quashing his convictions for genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and serious violations of Article 3 Common of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II for the events which took place at the Gashirabwoba football stadium. The Appeals Chamber however, affirmed the convictions entered against Imanishimwe for murder, imprisonment and torture as crimes against humanity and for murder, torture and cruel treatment as serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II.

In 2002, two human rights organisations filed a petition against Israel’s policy to eliminate alleged terrorists by targeted killings. Four years later, the Supreme Court provided a judgment. It acknowledged that Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with terrorist organisations and that therefore, the laws of war should apply. Terrorists, the Court reasoned, are neither combatants nor civilians in the legal sense. The Supreme Court therefore qualified the alleged terrorists as ‘non-legal combatants’. This does not mean, however, that killing these non-legal combatants is always legal. Nor is this always illegal. The Court establishes a framework with four conditions which have to be applied on a case-to-case basis to determine the (il)legality of a targeted killing. The Court reasoned that a targeted killing is only legal if the decision to kill is 1) based on reliable evidence, 2) if there are no other choices to alleviate the danger to Israel’s national security, 3) if the attack is followed by a thorough investigation and 4) if harm to innocent bystanders is limited to the absolute minimum.

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s verdict. In its ruling, it devoted most attention to the ‘political question doctrine’ which disallows Courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases which should remain within the realm of other governmental branches. Since the bulldozers had been paid for by the US, the Court reasoned, a ruling on the merits would also be a judicial opinion about important aspects of US foreign policy. Foreign policy should be decided on by the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary, the Court reasoned.    

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc.

On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request on both aspects raised by it. First, the Court of Appeals found that the scope of the record that will be reviewed must include all the Government Information. Second, the extent to which the Government may withhold information from the detainee’s counsel should not affect the burden vested upon the Government of producing the requested Government Information.