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 late May until mid-July 1994 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government of Rwanda. He was also a member of the Mouvement Républican National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) in Kigali-Rural préfecture.

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Kamuhanda guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Accused had supervised the killings in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural prefecture. He had distributed firearms, grenades and machetes to the Interahamwe militia. He had also led the attacks at the parish church and adjoining school in Gikomero, where several thousand Tutsi civilians were killed.

Kamuhanda raised 15 grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted genocide and extermination. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had correctly held Kamuhanda responsible for ordering genocide and extermination and ruled that vacating the findings that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted the crimes did not require the imposition of a lighter sentence.

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  

Seven U.K. soldiers were on patrol in Iraq on 11 May 2003, with the mission to look out for and halt persons attempting to smuggle money via neighbouring Iran. In the afternoon, a white Toyota pick-up truck came near to their checkpoint, but then drove away as if it was trying to avoid it. The patrollers decided to chase the car. They followed it until the village of Al-Ferkah, where they boxed the car with their vehicles. What happened then, is not entirely clear; what is known, though, is that force was used against both occupants; they were later taken to a hospital, but one of them, the 18 year old Nadhem Abdullah, was severely injured at his head and therefore sent to the Basra hospital for specialist treatment. Somewhere during the trip he died as consequence of his injuries. The U.K. military prosecutor accused the seven soldiers – a Corporal and six Privates under his command – of murder and violent disorder.

The judge found that there were serious issues with the evidence; most of the witness statements were either exaggerated or plain lies. Although it could be established that Abdullah had been assaulted by the accused’s section, it was unclear whether their use of force – which was in principle allowed, as part of their mission to bring an end to smuggling and other armed activities compromising security in the area – had been unlawful in the current case. Furthermore, no individual soldier could be identified as the person dealing the fatal blow, and no one could be individually found to have joined or encouraged an unlawful assault. Hence, all seven were acquitted of all charges.