Search results

The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes committed during the Croatian war of independence (1991-1995).

Glavaš has always denied any wrongdoing and he protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged that the trial was based on “political, not legal statements.” Nevertheless, after several appeals, on 2 June 2010, the Croatian Supreme Court sentenced Glavaš to eight years’ imprisonment for the war crimes of murder and torture of civilians. Glavaš attempted to evade sitting out his sentence by fleeing to Bosnia, but to no avail: there, he was arrested as well and the Bosnian courts upheld the verdict issued by their Croatian colleagues.

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. In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’.

With the case back at the Court of Appeals, the question to be determined was the scope of the jurisdiction of the ATCA with regard to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and racial discrimination. The Court held that genocide and war crimes fall within the scope of the ATCA. These norms, according to the Court, are specific, universal and obligatory accepted and extend to corporations. However, the crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and the racial discrimination claims are not and, therefore, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims of genocide and war crimes.

In October 1991, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence from Yugoslavia resulting in a civil war between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in order to gain control of territory. The enclave of Srebrenica, near the border with Serbia, became a refuge for Bosniak civilians from nearby areas a Bosnian Serb forces obtained greater control over the surrounding area. A UN peacekeeping compound was based at Potocari in Srebrenica composed of lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers who were entrusted with keeping the area free from attack.

From 6 to 8 July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces attacked the Srebrenica enclave and shelled the township and on 11 July 1995, Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica unopposed.

The Bosnian Serb troops proceeded to separate the women, children and elderly men from the military aged and able bodied males. The former group were loaded onto buses and transported to areas under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. The men were hoarded onto separate buses and, in the coming days, were detained and summarily executed by members of the VRS (Republika Srpska Army) and police units including the 1st Company of the Jahorina Training Center of the Special Police Brigade of the MUP RS (Republika Sprska Ministry of the Interior). Some 40,000 people were forcibly transferred and between 7000 and 8000 men were executed.

Duško Jević, Mendeljev Đurić, Goran Marković and Nedo Ikonić all occupied leadership positions within the Jahorina Training Center with Jević being the overall Commander. The War Crimes Chamber of the State Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina convicted Jević and Đurić of genocide for their participation in Srebrenica and sentenced them to 35 and 30 years’ imprisonment respectively. Marković and Ikonić were acquitted. 

Charles Zentai is an Australian citizen, who is accused of involvement in the killing of a young Jewish man, Mr Balazs, in Budapest in November 1944. The young man was not wearing his yellow star, upon which Zentai allegedly dragged him to an army post and, with others, beat him to death.

In 2005 the Republic of Hungary asked Australia to extradite Charles Zentai. In 1944, there was no offence of war crime in the Hungarian Criminal Code. Although murder was a crime in the National Code in 1944, the Republic of Hungary did not seek the accused’s surrender for prosecution for murder, but for war crime.

On 12 November 2006, the Minister determined that the accused was to be surrendered to the Republic of Hungary. A judge of the Federal Court and later on the Full Court of the Federal Court required that the accused should be released.

On 15 August 2012, the High Court determined that the Minister could not extradite the accused, because the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary determines that extradition may only take place for a crime that was an offence in the Requesting State at the time the acts constituting it occurred. 

On 26 October 2010, a group of 20 Somalians, armed with machine guns and bazookas, violently attacked a yacht off the Seychelles. They hijacked the South African yacht ‘Choizil’ off the Tanzanian coast after it had left Dar es Salaam en route for South Africa. Because the South African authorities refused to prosecute the captured Somalians, five men who were members of the group were arrested and transferred to the Netherlands in order to be prosecuted.

On 12 August 2011, the Court of First Instance of Rotterdam convicted the five men for piracy and sentenced them for a period between four-and-a-half and seven years. The decision was appealed by the defendants to the Court of Appeal of the Hague.

One of the appellants was T21. On 20 December 2012, the Court of Appeal found that though the accused had not been able to call certain witnesses (namely, other suspects who had been captured together with T21 but were released afterwards), this did not violate his fair trial rights; T21 had been given sufficient means for his defence and the equality-of-arms-principle was found to have been ensured.

The Court of Appeal found the accused guilty for his intentional participation in a group that intended to hijack ships and use them for unlawful purposes and in unlawful ways. The Court further found that the accused had threatened persons on board of the Choizil with force, but, contrary to the Court of First Instance, it was not convinced that he had actually fired any weapon himself. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance and replaced it with a new decision on the facts that were proven. The sentence was reduced from six to five years' imprisonment (with credit for time on remand).

The case was the first time a criminal case, in which Somali pirates stood trial, was heard in appeal in the Netherlands.