Search results

During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.

Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.

Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.

The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.

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.

The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.  

Madelaine Bukumba, a woman originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was previously employed by the Comité de Securité de l'État (CSE). Her job was to listen incognito to the conversations of individuals in public places and to report on their opinions to the CSE as well as on media coverage of the government. 

After being shown on television speaking against the government’s use of child soldiers, Bukumba was put in prison for 15 days. Following her release, she attempted to quit her job but was threatened to be killed if she would quit. Thereafter, Bukumba fled to Kenya and eventually to Canada together with her minor daughter.

Bukumba claimed protection under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in order not to be returned to the DRC. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada held that she did not qualify for protection because she had been an accomplice to serious crimes committed by the government because she was a former governmental employee. In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Board held that there was no risk to her or her daughter’s life if returned to the DRC.

In the morning of 27 August 1999, pro-independence members attacked pro-autonomy militia members at a market in Home, East Timor. In retaliation for the attack, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and local militia groups attacked the home of Verissimo Dias Quintas, the local figurehead for the pro-independence group Conselho Nacional da Resistencia Timorense (CNRT). Inacio Olivera, Gilberto Fernandes and Jose Da Costa (the Accused) were present at the attack and contributed to the destruction of the building by shooting rifles, directing the action and bringing in weapons.

Although the Prosecution had charged the Accused with crimes against humanity, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes found that the conduct of the Accused could not be qualified as such. Importantly, there was no link between the attack on the CNRT compound and a widespread or systametic attack against the Timorese population, which is a requisite for crimes against humanity. Instead, the Court requalified the offense as the domestic offense of violence against persons or property, contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code. They were acquitted of the crime of murder as the Court found that they did not contribute to the murder in any way. The Accused were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment each.

Marcelino Soares was a Village Level Commander of the Indonesian Army (TNI) during the violence that followed after East Timor’s 1999 referendum concerning its independence.  On 20 April 1999 soldiers under the command of Soares arrested three pro-independence supporters on his orders. The three prisoners, Luis Dias Soares, Rafael de Jesus and Felipe de Sousa were taken to an empty building on the orders of Marcelino Soares were they were detained, interrogated and physically abused by Soares himself and his subordinates. Luis Dias Soares died as a result of the wounds inflicted on him.

Soares was charged with murder, torture and persecution by illegal detention as crimes against humanity. The Court found that Soares was responsible for the murder of Dias Soares on the basis of command responsibility, as the death of Dias Soares resulted from his omission to control the soldiers under his command. For murder (or torture, or persecution) to be considered a crime against humanity, the act must be part of a widespread and systematic attack. The Court considered this was the case, and that Soares knew about this, as he attended TNI meetings.

The Trial Court convicted Soares, on the basis of both individual and command responsibility, for murder of one person and torture and persecution of three persons, as crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to 11 years imprisonment.

The Public Defender appealed against the conviction of the Dili District Court. The Court of Appeal examined whether an error of fact (leading to an error of law) had been committed by the Trial Court, when it acknowledged the systematic character of the attack against the civilian population contextual to the conduct of the accused, the illegality of detention of victims and the command responsibility of the accused.

The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court had not erred in these matters and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.