Search results

The current case, the first case for genocide charges before a Dutch court, took place against the Rwandan Yvonne Basebya. She comes from a wealthy family and married with Augustin Basebya, a high-ranking politician for the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (NRMD). Rwandan authorities alerted the Netherlands about Augustin being listed as wanted in Rwanda in 2007. Investigations followed, leading to Yvonne being suspected as well; ultimately, Yvonne was arrested in 2010 on suspicion of involvement in the Rwandan genocide.

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 1 March 2013 that Yvonne’s guilt on several of the (complicity in, and conspiracy to commit) genocide and war crimes charges could not be established. However, her repeated singing in public of the notorious anti-Tutsi song “Tubatsembatsembe” (meaning: “Let us eliminate them”) before the youth, unemployed and lower or uneducated and using her local notable upper-class position, combined with her repeatedly (even until the day of the judgment) expressed hatred against the Tutsis, did qualify as incitement to genocide. She was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison pursuant to the Dutch War Crimes Act: the maximum sentence at the time (which the Court regretted, noting that the 2003 International Crimes Act which replaced the War Crimes Act had changed this to 30 years).

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for illegally importing weapons and ammunition and complicity in war crimes committed by Charles Taylor’s regime. Kouwenhoven was not protected from prosecution by the Liberian Amnesty Scheme introduced by Charles Taylor’s government prior to Taylor’s resignation. The Court found that Kouwenhoven had deliberately provided the weapons used for the war crimes committed by the combined Liberian armed forces and therefore was an accomplice to these war crimes.

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.

What happens if a country suspects a national of another country of being involved in the murder of one of its officials? In many cases, the former country will request an extradition of the suspect. But what happens if the latter country refuses?

In this case, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, having lost one of its own at the hands of a Mexican drug cartel, took matters in its own hands and forcibly abducted one of the suspects, Humberto Alvarez—Machain. In the United States, he was indicted for participation in kidnap and murder. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal established that the forcible abduction stood in the way of Alvarez-Machain’s trial in the United States. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that while crossing another state’s border to abduct someone might constitute a violation of international law, it was not a violation of the extradition treaty. Relying on previous case law, the Supreme Court established that Alvarez-Machain’s forcible abduction did not prohibit his trial in a United States court.