Search results

The Accused, Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, had been appointed Minister of Finance in the Interim Government of Rwanda on 9 April 1994 and held the post until July 1994.

For his role in the events that took place at Gitwa Hill and at Gaseke roadblock, the Prosecution of the ICTR charged Ndindabahizi with three counts: genocide; extermination and murder as crimes against humanity. On 15 July 2004, Trial Chamber I of the Tribunal found Ndindabahizi guilty of genocide for instigating, facilitating and assisting attacks against Tutsi refugees who had gathered at Gitwa Hill on two occasions, namely on 23 and 24 April 1994. The Chamber also found him guilty of extermination as a crime against humanity for his actions at Gitwa Hill. In addition, the Chamber found him guilty of genocide and murder on the grounds that he had encouraged those manning Gaseke roadblock to kill Tutsi and that he had provided them with material assistance. The Trial Chamber sentenced Ndindabahizi to life imprisonment. 

Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.

After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.

Miroslav Deronjić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the village of Glogova in Bosnia and Herzegovina in May 1992. The attack resulted in the deaths of Bosnian Muslims and the destruction of their properties and homes. Deronjić pleaded guilty to the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity and, subsequently, Trial Chamber II found him guilty. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the imposed sentence, adducing four grounds of appeal.

First, he argued that Trial Chamber II reached its conclusions on the basis of evidence that was not among the documents agreed upon with the Prosecution. Furthermore, he asserted that Trial Chamber II erroneously found that it was not bound to apply a more lenient penalty than the national laws of the former Yugoslavia would envisage. The Appeals Chamber concluded that those domestic laws do not bind the Tribunal and thus his argument could not be upheld. In his last two grounds of appeal, Deronjić argued that Trial Chamber II made errors in the assessment of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Appeals Chamber found, however, no errors.

As a result, all four grounds of appeal were dismissed and the sentence of 10 years of imprisonment was upheld.

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal, as it considered that the trial court had erred in dismissing charges against Basson regarding conspiracy to murder abroad. The trial court had held that since the conspired crimes were committed abroad, Basson could not be tried for conspiracy in South Africa. The Constitutional Court rejected that reasoning, stating that there was a close link between South Africa and the crimes committed.  

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, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.