Search results

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands affirmed the strong approach to dual attribution taken by the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal. It found that it is possible for both the Netherlands and the UN to have effective control over the same wrongful conduct and that attributing this conduct to the Netherlands did not in any way determine whether the UN also exercised effective control over the Dutchbat troops (pp. 22-23, para. 3.11.2).

This case is important, as it marks the first time an individual government has been held to account for the conduct of its peacekeeping troops operating under a UN mandate. Liesbeth Zegveld, the Dutch lawyer who represented the victims, stated that “a U.N. flag doesn’t give...immunity as a state or as an individual soldier.” As a result of this judgment, two Bosnian families are now expected to receive damages from the Dutch state, and other cases may follow.

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, a nationwide campaign was launched against members of the Tutsi population who were subsequently targeted for elimination. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis died over a period of several months.

The present case before the Court of First Instance for Gisenyi prefecture in Rwanda considers a series of murders committed by Jules Baritima with the aid of Léni Nyirashako against Tutsis seeking refuge in the home of the latter. The Tribunal found Baritima guilty of genocide and sentenced him to death. Nyirashako was found guilty of murder. Both Accused were ordered to pay damages to the families of the victims.

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a widespread campaign against the civilian population in East Timor in order to repress pro-independence supporters.

The present case was the first before an international or hybrid international/domestic tribunal like the Special Panels for Serious Crimes to indict a minor for their involvement in the perpetration of international crimes. The Accused, X, was 14 years old in 1999 when, as a member of the Sakunar militia group, he killed by machete three young men who had been apprehended by the militia as part of a larger group. The Prosecution had initially charged the Accused with extermination as a crime against humanity, but later amended to murder in violation of the Indonesian Penal Code. The Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Having already served 11 months 21 days in ore-trial detention, the Court ordered the remainder of the sentence to be suspended on the condition that the Accused does not commit any crimes for a period of one year. At sentencing, the youth of the Accused was a decisive mitigating factor as the Panel considered that he was used merely as a tool by those truly responsible.

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups operated throughout the territory. They were responsible for perpetrating a number of crimes against the civilian population, particularly those perceived to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Abilio Mendes Correia, was a member of the Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia group who in August 1999 came across a truck carrying a well-known leader of the pro-independence group Conselho Nacional da Resistencia Timorense (CNRT). Acting on orders, the Accused and other militia members proceeded to remove the victim from the truck in which he was travelling and then severely beat him. The beating was halted when the victim was taken away for questioning; He was never seen alive again.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. However, with credit for the time he had already served in pre-trial detention, he was released two days after the judgment.

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.