Search results

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes. 

On 15 September 2011, while on patrol in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan, UK Marines Sergeant Alexander Blackman and his men were on patrol. They found a Taliban insurgent who had been seriously wounded (lawfully) by an Apache helicopter, and as such formed no longer a threat. After removing his AK47, magazines and a grenade, Blackman caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of his operational headquarters at Shazad so that "PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him". He ordered those of his men giving some first aid to stop, and when he was sure headquarters could not see him, he discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. He then told his patrol to remain silent about what happened, saying that he had just broken the Geneva Convention.

Taking into consideration Blackman's superior position as sergeant (under command of the patrol) and the consequences his acts could have for other British soldiers - namely possible reprisals - the Court found Blackman guilty of murder in violation of the laws of war (a war crime). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a possibility for parole after ten years, stripped of his ranks and dismissed from service with disgrace.

Maher H.’s case is the first conviction in the Netherlands of a Dutch ‘foreign fighter’ returning from Syria. He was convicted on 1 December 2014 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by the District Court in The Hague. Although it was not exactly clear what Maher H. had done in Syria, the Court found enough evidence to determine, among other things, that he was guilty of preparing to commit terrorist crimes, including murder and manslaughter. The Court based its decision on the fact that he had actually been to Syria and participated in the armed conflict there as well as his support for the jihad. Factors such as Maher H.’s decision to join a jihadi armed group in Syria that aimed to destroy Syria’s political structure and establish an Islamic State were also considered relevant in showing his terrorist intent. The Court moreover convicted Maher H. of disseminating inciting videos, pictures and a document. However, he was acquitted of conspiring to commit a terrorist offence due to a lack of evidence. This decision was subsequently appealed by the defendant.