Search results

On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, first as a crime against humanity. Later, the Appeals Chamber ordered that he be allowed to replead before a new Trial Chamber, during which he pleaded guilty to murder as a war crime. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors. 

The magnitude of the crimes at the Pilica farm (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Erdemović’s role in them were considered as aggravating circumstances. Turning to the mitigating circumstances, Trial Chamber II took into consideration Erdemović’s personal circumstances, his admission of guilt, his expression of remorse, and his cooperation with the Prosecution. Trial Chamber II found that Erdemović committed the crimes under duress, that is, in fear that he would be killed should he disobey the orders to kill the Bosnian Muslims. Accordingly, Trial Chamber II considered this as a mitigating factor. 

Erdemović was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings. By a decision of 25 November 1998, the House of Lords in a 3:2 majority held that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings and could therefore be extradited.

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

The present decision of 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords held that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity in respect of charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture where such conduct was committed after 8 December 1988, the date upon which the 1984 Torture Convention entered into force in the UK. This temporal qualification significantly limited the charges for which Pinochet can be extradited to Spain as the majority of the conduct alleged was either not an extraditable offence or was committed prior to this date. Under English law, it was now for the Home Secretary, then Jack Straw, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed with extradition. 

Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim civilians between April 1992 and February 1993. During this time, an armed conflict existed between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Serb Army and paramilitary groups detained Bosnian Muslim women and subjected them to repeated rapes, torture and other mistreatments.

Trial Chamber II found that the acts of the Bosnian Serbs amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It found the three accused responsible for these crimes.

Dragoljub Kunarac was found guilty of crimes against humanity (torture, rape, enslavement), and war crimes (torture and rape) and, subsequently, sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment.

Radomir Kovač was also found guilty of the war crimes of rape and outrages upon personal dignity, as well as the crimes against humanity of enslavement and rape. He was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.

Zoran Vuković was found guilty of torture and rape as both war crimes and crimes against humanity. Trial Chamber II sentenced him to 12 years of imprisonment.

Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. He was indicted by the investigating judge in Senegal for complicity in crimes of torture committed in Chad.

The present decision of the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Court of Appeal of Dakar barring criminal proceedings against Habré on the grounds that the Senegalese courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals for acts of torture committed outside Senegal. The Supreme Court found that there was no provision in domestic legislation establishing jurisdiction over such offences.