Search results

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations reignited. President Habyariamana’s political party, the Mouvement Républicain National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) and its youth militia wing, the Interahamwe, began perpetrating a number of widespread abuses against Tutsis and moderate Hutu’s as punishment for what many perceived to be the deliberate death of the former Hutu president.

Georges Rutaganda was a member of the MRND and the Second Vice President of the Interahamwe since 1991. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that he had used his position of authority over the Interahamwe to distribute weapons, order the separation of the Hutu from the Tutsi and direct the massacre of thousands of Tutsis, particularly in connection with incidents at the Amgar garage and the Technical College, ETO. He was convicted of genocide and murder and extermination as crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal by both the Prosecution and counsel for Rutaganda, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify the law applicable to the special intent for the crime of genocide and the nexus requirement for war crimes. As a result of its findings in the latter area, the Appeals Chamber entered two new convictions for murder as a war crime, the first conviction of this kind before the Tribunal. Rutaganda’s sentence was confirmed and he was transferred to Benin where he died in prison on 11 October 2010.

Ranko Češić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in collection centers in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1992. On 8 October 2003, Češić pleaded guilty to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and subsequently, the Trial Chamber entered a finding of guilt.

In order to assess the appropriate sentence for Češić, Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, Trial Chamber I considered that the high number of murders and the violation of the moral and physical integrity of the rape victims were factors that underlined the seriousness of the committed crimes.

Trial Chamber I also found that the vulnerability of the victims, the cruelty and depravity shown during the commission of the crimes and the exacerbated humiliation of the victims were all aggravating factors. Conversely, three mitigating circumstances were accorded relevance, namely, Češić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, and his remorse.

Češić was sentenced to 18 years of imprisonment.

The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK. 

On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I found him guilty. 

Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the crime Babić admitted to with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the adequate sentence. 

It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić received a sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.

Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.

After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.

From late May until mid-July 1994 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government of Rwanda. He was also a member of the Mouvement Républican National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) in Kigali-Rural préfecture.

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Kamuhanda guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Accused had supervised the killings in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural prefecture. He had distributed firearms, grenades and machetes to the Interahamwe militia. He had also led the attacks at the parish church and adjoining school in Gikomero, where several thousand Tutsi civilians were killed.

Kamuhanda raised 15 grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted genocide and extermination. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had correctly held Kamuhanda responsible for ordering genocide and extermination and ruled that vacating the findings that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted the crimes did not require the imposition of a lighter sentence.