Search results

The main reason for proceedings against Jeffrey Kennett, the then Premier of Victoria, appears to have been the Premier’s refusal to recognise the Gunai under Booran as a sovereign people and the Land Titles Validation (Ammended) Act, which was passed under the government of Kennett in 1998. This Act confirmed and validated property titles. According to Robbie Thorne, Aboriginal activist, this Act ‘extinguished all the native title the Victorian Aboriginal people ever had’. Arguing that these conditions would lead to mental harm and that these measures were calculated to destroy the Aboriginals, Thorne requested that Kennett would be charged with genocide.

However, Thorne faced the brick wall that many faced before and after him: the Judge ruled that genocide was not a crime under national law. Specifically, the Judge rejected the argument made by some (including a dissenting judge in a previous case) that in some instances, international law can be incorporated into domestic law. With regard to the merits of the case, the judge ruled that the evidence presented by Thorpe did not in itself demonstrate genocidal intent, which is an essential element of genocide. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

The Accused, Alfred Musema, was director of the Gisovu Tea Factory in Kibuye Prefecture during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The Prosecutor alleged that on various occasions during April, May and June 1994, Musema transported armed attackers, including employees of the factory, to different locations in Gisovu and Gishyita communes and ordered them to attack Tutsis seeking refuge there. He also personally took part in such attacks and killings. The indictment against Musema was later amended to include charges that he committed various acts of rape and that he ordered and encouraged others to rape and kill Tutsi women.

With regard to certain allegations concerning specific attacks, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found that either the evidence presented was not sufficient or that Musema's alibi cast doubt on the Prosecution evidence. The Chamber was satisfied nevertheless that Musema had participated in attacks at Gitwa Hill, Rwirambo Hill, Muyira Hill and at Mumataba during late-April and mid-May and his alibi for that period was not accepted. The Chamber also found that he had raped a woman named Nyiramusugi and, by his example, encouraged others to rape her. For these acts, the Trial Chamber found Musema guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (extermination and rape) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  

The Accused in the present case was Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minister. On 4 September 1998, he had pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity (murder and extermination) and Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and later requested that his guilty plea be quashed and that he stand trial.

Before the Appeals Chamber, Kambanda argued that he had not been assigned the lawyer of his choice and that even when he finally did receive legal representation the assignment of the lawyer was influenced by the Prosecution. He also accused his defense counsel, Mr. Oliver Michael Inglis, of inadequate representation. In addition, he claimed that the Registry had organized his detention in facilities where he was isolated from other detainees and that he felt oppressed by these arrangements. The Prosecution pointed out that, for a while, Kambanda had refused any legal representation until the Registry told him that in the interest of justice he had to be represented by counsel. He subsequently requested the Registry, in writing, to assign Mr. Inglis as his defence counsel.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all the grounds advanced by the Accused and upheld his sentence.

Nikola Jorgić was born in 1946 in the Doboj region in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was leader of a Serb paramilitary group in the Doboj region that committed various crimes against the Muslim population residing there. Jorgić was allegedly responsible for the killing of 22 villagers in Grabska (involving elderly and disabled) and seven villagers in Sevarlije. In addition, he allegedly arrested Muslims, and subsequently detained and abused them in detention camps. Jorgić was found guilty of 14 counts of acting as accomplice to murder and attempted murder. Jorgić was sentenced to life imprisonment.

It was the first war crimes trial that took place in Germany since the final judgment issued by the Nuremberg tribunal that dealt with Nazi war criminals more than 50 years ago.