Search results

Miroslav Deronjić was indicted for his role in the commission of crimes in the village of Glogova (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1992. The attack resulted in the deaths of Bosnian Muslims and the destruction of their properties, homes, and religious institutions. Deronjić pleaded guilty to the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity and, subsequently, Trial Chamber II found him guilty.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II balanced the gravity of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It held that the large number of casualties, the extensively planned attack, Deronjić's abuse of his political position, and the acceptance of a false statement suggesting safety for the Muslims of Glogova were relevant aggravating factors. Trial Chamber II concluded that the relevant mitigating circumstances were Deronjić's guilty plea, his co-operation with the Prosecution and the Tribunal, his remorse, and contribution to the prevention of massacres, such as the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, from happening again.

Based on these factors, Trial Chamber II handed down a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK. 

On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I found him guilty. 

Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the crime Babić admitted to with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the adequate sentence. 

It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić received a sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.

The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1992. Shortly afterwards, a strategic plan was created with the aim to remove the non-Serb population from the newly proclaimed Bosnian Serb state. To this extent, the local police, the newly created army and Serb paramilitary groups engaged in a campaign of attacks resulting in the commission of crimes against the non-Serb population. During this time, Brđanin was the President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) Crisis Staff, which functioned as a center for cooperation between the Serb forces committing the crimes.

Trial Chamber II held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime of genocide was committed in the territory of the ARK. Therefore, Brđanin could not be found guilty on such charges.

However, the ARK Crisis Staff's decision to disarm the non-Serbs was found to have assisted and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime of torture, which led Trial Chamber II to find Brđanin guilty of aiding and abetting torture both as a crime against humanity and as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II furthermore found Brđanin guilty of other crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment.

On 9 October 2015 the Dutch citizen Mohammed G. was arrested because the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service AIVD believed he was about to travel to Syria or Iraq. This was not the first time the defendant was arrested; in an earlier judgment Mohammed G. was ordered to spend a year in a psychiatric hospital because he suffered from hallucinations that ordered him to join the jihadi armed struggle in Syria or Iraq.

In the current case, the Court held that the defendant was well aware of the things he would participate in if he were to travel to Syria or Iraq. For example, the defendant was recorded saying ‘I want to fight, I want to kill, I want to be’. The Court therefore ruled that the defendant was guilty of seeking to obtain for himself or for others the opportunity, means or information for the commission of arson and/or causing explosions and/or murder and/or manslaughter. According to the Court, the participation in the jihadi armed struggle can be qualified as those crimes. The defendant committed the crimes with terrorist intent.

A psychological report of the defendant was drawn up, which concluded that the defendant’s intelligence bordered on him being mentally handicapped. The Court concurred with these findings and concluded that the defendant was in a state of partially diminished responsibility. The Court therefore sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment and a hospital order (TBS), to reduce the risk of recidivism.

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

A crucial question in his case has been the qualification of the crimes with which he is charged: crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago they were committed. By contrast, war crimes are subject to the French statute of limitations of 10 years. The present decision was an appeal by a number of civil parties and associations against a decision of a lower court, which held that proceedings against Barbie could not continue for conduct qualified as war crimes as the 10 year window had elapsed. The Supreme Court of France upheld the applicability of the 10 year statute of limitations to war crimes, but it clarified the difference between conduct which may amount at the same time to war crimes and crimes against humanity. As a result, Barbie’s case was sent back to the lower court so that proceedings could continue against him on charges of crimes against humanity, particularly persecution of innocent Jews as part of the "Final Solution". Crimes committed against resistance fighters were, however, excluded as war crimes.