Search results

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.  

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the three defendants of the charges entered against them and found that the prosecution had not been able to establish a link between the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and Polri (Resort Police of the Police of Republic of Indonesia), on the one hand, and the BMP, on the other. The former were official governmental bodies, whereas the latter were militia. The judgment was publicly criticized as it was argued that the TNI and the riot police were indeed involved in the violence, including the killing of the 22 civilians.

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a widespread campaign against the civilian population in East Timor in order to repress pro-independence supporters.

The present case was the first before an international or hybrid international/domestic tribunal like the Special Panels for Serious Crimes to indict a minor for their involvement in the perpetration of international crimes. The Accused, X, was 14 years old in 1999 when, as a member of the Sakunar militia group, he killed by machete three young men who had been apprehended by the militia as part of a larger group. The Prosecution had initially charged the Accused with extermination as a crime against humanity, but later amended to murder in violation of the Indonesian Penal Code. The Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Having already served 11 months 21 days in ore-trial detention, the Court ordered the remainder of the sentence to be suspended on the condition that the Accused does not commit any crimes for a period of one year. At sentencing, the youth of the Accused was a decisive mitigating factor as the Panel considered that he was used merely as a tool by those truly responsible.

The Accused, Laurent Semanza, was the former Bourgmestre (mayor) of Bicumbi commune. He was indicted on 14 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for his role in the Rwandan genocide.

On 15 May 2003, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found him guilty of aiding and abetting genocide during the massacres at Musha Church and Mwulire Hill, which took place on 13 April 1994 and 18 April 1994 respectively. The Chamber also convicted him of extermination as a crime against humanity for his conduct at Musha church and Mwulire Hill. The Trial Chamber further held that Semanza was guilty of torture and murder as crimes against humanity. These convictions arose out of Semanza’s April 1994 incitement of a crowd in Gikoro commune to rape Tutsi women before killing them. He was also held directly responsible for the torture and murder of Rusanganwa, a Tutsi, whom he attacked and killed during the Musha Church massacre.

However, the judgment acquitted the Accused of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, and persecution as a crime against humanity.

The Trial Chamber sentenced the Accused to 25 years of imprisonment. This sentence was reduced by 6 months because of violations of the Accused’s rights that occurred while in detention prior to his transfer to the ICTR.

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, guilty on two counts of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Tribunal sentenced him to prison for the remainder of his life.

The Trial Chamber found the Accused not guilty of five counts in the nine counts indictment against him. They included conspiracy to commit genocide, rape and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, and two counts of violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. The Chamber also dismissed two counts of complicity in genocide and murder as a crime against humanity.

In reaching its guilty verdict on two counts, the Trial Chamber found that  Kamuhanda had the intent to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in whole or in part and was individually criminally responsible for instigating, ordering, aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi by virtue of his role in the killing of members of the Tutsi ethnic group in the Gikomero Parish Compound where he ordered Interahamwe militia, soldiers, and policemen to kill the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that a large number of Tutsi were exterminated as a direct result of Kamuhanda’s participation by ordering, instigating, aiding and abetting the attack at the Gikomero Parish compound.