Search results

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

In this decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia and held that Hamdan’s trial by military commission would be unlawful for a number of reasons: conspiracy, with which he is charged, is not a crime against the laws of war, the commissions do not conform to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor with the rights guaranteed to Hamdan under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

By a decision of 17 June 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, the former mayor of Rusumo commune, of genocide and crimes against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber found that Gacumbitsi had used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. On appeal by the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify a number of important areas of law including the law applicable to instigation and rape as a crime against humanity. The Chamber dismissed all of Gacumbitsi’s grounds of appeal but entered new convictions for murder as a crime against humanity. Gacumbitsi’s sentence was increased to life imprisonment.

From March 1981 through July 1994 André Ntagerura served as a minister in the Rwandan Government. His last position was as Minister of Transport and Communications in the interim government. From 4 July 1992 to 17 July 1994, Emmanuel Bagambiki served as the prefect of Cyangugu. Samuel Imanishimwe, a lieutenant in the Rwandan Armed Forces, served as the acting commander of the Cyangugu military camp from October 1993 until he left Rwanda in July 1994.

On 7 July 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR reduced Samuel Imanishimwe’s sentence from 27 to 12 years imprisonment and recalled that it had confirmed the acquittals of André Ntagerura, former Minister of Transport and Communications, and Emmanuel Bagambiki, former Prefect of Cyangugu on 8 February 2006. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber granted Imanishimwe’s first ground of appeal, quashing his convictions for genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and serious violations of Article 3 Common of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II for the events which took place at the Gashirabwoba football stadium. The Appeals Chamber however, affirmed the convictions entered against Imanishimwe for murder, imprisonment and torture as crimes against humanity and for murder, torture and cruel treatment as serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, an US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgement, as it was confident that a judicial ruling in this case would not interfere with the duties and prerogatives of the executive branch.