Search results

In August 1995, the Croatian forces conducted a rapid offensive attack against the Krajina region which had the purpose of removing ethnic Serbs, and make the region suitable for Croats instead. Both Gotovina and Markač were in a high military position that controlled the operation in Krajina.

The Chamber found that both Gotovina and Markač participated in a joint criminal enterprise, which aimed at the removal of Serbs from Krajina. Their rank and position allowed them control over the conduct of the military personnel, and they were aware of the criminal behavior that occurred in Krajina, as well as the underlying common purpose.

The Chamber found them guilty; General Gotovina received a 24 year sentence, while Markač was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The Chamber acquitted Čermak, because it found that he did not have control over the acts of the military, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that he knew that his conduct in Knin was intended to further the goal of repopulating Krajina with Croats.

Casimir Bizimungu was Minister of Health from April 1987 until January 1989. He returned to this position form April 1992 until he fled Rwanda in July 1994.

Justin Mugenzi founded the Parti Libéral (PL) on 14 July 1991. He became Minister of Commerce in July 1993. Mr. Mugenzi continued to hold this position in the Interim Government.

Jérôme-Clément Bicamumpaka joined the Mouvement Démocratique Républicain (MDR) party in 1991 and was sworn in to the Interim Government as the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 9 April 1994.

After working as a prosecutor and in various ministries in Kigali, Prosper Mugiraneza was appointed Minister of Public Service and Professional Training in 1992. When the Interim Government was formed, he became the Minister of Civil Service.

The Trial Chamber convicted both Mugenzi and Mugiraneza for conspiracy to commit genocide for their participation in the decision to remove Butare’s Tutsi Prefect, Jean-Baptiste Habyalimana. They were also convicted for direct and public incitement to commit genocide for their participation at the installation ceremony where President Théodore Sindikubwabo gave an inflammatory speech inciting the killing of Tutsis. The two Accused were sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment. Bizimungu and Bicamumpaka were acquitted.

It is well accepted in international law that Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity from prosecution by virtue of the office that they hold. This immunity extends to acts committed in an official capacity whilst in office, after they have left office. In recent years, however, this concept of functional immunity has been challenged by allegations that former government officials have committed international crimes whilst in office. In what has been hailed as a ‘landmark’ decision, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland considered that the former Algerian Minister of Defence, who is charged with having committed war crimes and torture whilst in office in 1992-1993, is not entitled to immunity before the Swiss courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that it would be contrary for international law to prohibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as fundamental norms but then to allow for a broad interpretation of functional immunity the result of which would be that beneficiaries of this immunity would be immune from prosecution even where they allegedly committed such crimes. 

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).

In March 2003, a military coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coalition forces remained in Iraq as an occupying force, engaging in the process of rebuilding the country. During the occupation, the US military contracted with several private military contractors for a wide array of services the US military simply had no manpower for, due to the implications of the occupation and rebuilding process. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they were hired to supervise detention centres or to provide security services and ended up torturing or unlawfully killing civilians. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc., and the current case Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Services Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3 Services, Inc., a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a U.S. citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 Services at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 Services and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also alleged that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 Services and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 Services and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint.

The Court disagreed with defendants. On 29 June 2010, it rejected the motions to dismiss, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.