Search results

On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, first as a crime against humanity. Later, the Appeals Chamber ordered that he be allowed to replead before a new Trial Chamber, during which he pleaded guilty to murder as a war crime. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors. 

The magnitude of the crimes at the Pilica farm (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Erdemović’s role in them were considered as aggravating circumstances. Turning to the mitigating circumstances, Trial Chamber II took into consideration Erdemović’s personal circumstances, his admission of guilt, his expression of remorse, and his cooperation with the Prosecution. Trial Chamber II found that Erdemović committed the crimes under duress, that is, in fear that he would be killed should he disobey the orders to kill the Bosnian Muslims. Accordingly, Trial Chamber II considered this as a mitigating factor. 

Erdemović was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim civilians between April 1992 and February 1993. During this time, an armed conflict existed between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Serb Army and paramilitary groups detained Bosnian Muslim women and subjected them to repeated rapes, torture and other mistreatments.

Trial Chamber II found that the acts of the Bosnian Serbs amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It found the three accused responsible for these crimes.

Dragoljub Kunarac was found guilty of crimes against humanity (torture, rape, enslavement), and war crimes (torture and rape) and, subsequently, sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment.

Radomir Kovač was also found guilty of the war crimes of rape and outrages upon personal dignity, as well as the crimes against humanity of enslavement and rape. He was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.

Zoran Vuković was found guilty of torture and rape as both war crimes and crimes against humanity. Trial Chamber II sentenced him to 12 years of imprisonment.

Eleven Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming that their continued detention without a right to judicial review was unlawful.

The Court partly agreed with the detainees. While they are not US citizens, they are being held under control of the US government. The fact that Guantanamo Bay is conveniently placed outside US sovereign territory does not change this. Hence, Guantanamo detainees have the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, a fundamental constitutional right. This right had been violated, and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures were found unconstitutional. And regarding alleged Taliban fighters, the Court held that they are state forces - regular soldiers or combatants - and should therefore receive prisoner of war-status and -protection under the Third Geneva Convention. Where they had not received such protection without proper reasons, their detention was illegal.

All other claims (based on the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Alien Tort Claims Act) were rejected, they were inapplicable on the current cases.

During the armed conflict that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia pitting Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) was the official military formation of the Bosnian Croats. The Accused, Tomo Jurinović, was a member of the HVO wing in Kotor Varoš. On 31 July 1992, he is alleged to have forcibly removed a family from their home in Novo Selo with three other members of the HVO. The family was then marched to the village of Ravne where they were detained by the Accused and others on the premises of a school. During this march, the family was routinely abused and one of its members died.

The Accused was indicted for war crimes by the Prosecutor’s Office in the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon request of the Prosecutor and with support of counsel for the Accused, the Court decided to transfer the case to the court of Banja Luka. The factors that were taken into consideration by the Court included the simplicity of the case by comparison to others before the Court (the Accused did not occupy the role of a commander, there was only one deceased, the case concerned one incident), the workload of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office and the expenses that could be saved by transferring the case. 

In August 1998, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.

El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries filed a petition to the Court of Appeals asking for the case to be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court). On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals granted their petition, ordering that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc and vacating the earlier judgment of 27 March 2009.