Search results

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied.

In 2002, with the adoption of the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff had already sought (and failed to find) two interlocutory injunctions to prevent a bridge from being built to Hindmarsh in South Australia. It was held that this construction would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. The judge did not agree that the construction would amount to genocide and reiterated earlier judgments that genocide was not a criminal act under Australian law. Treaties are not a direct source of law in Australia, and neither is customary international law.

In 2002, with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters. The Accused, Sabino Gouveia Leite, was the Chief of the village of Guda in the sub-district of Lolotoe.

In May 1999, Leite provided information to the Kaer Metin Merah Putih militia (KMP) regarding the identity of independence supporters or persons associated with or sypathetic to the pro-independence group Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). As a result, three victims were forcible removed from their homes and detained in the home sof various KMP members until July 1999. Others were interrogated and placed in the KORAMIL, a military command centre where they were subject to beatings and extremely unhygienic living conditions.

The Accused pleaded guilty to the crimes against humanity of imprisonment, torture and other inhumane acts. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes.

In the period of April 1992 until March 1993 a large-scale armed conflict was taking place in the Foča municipality. During this time Neđo Samardžić was a member of the army of the so-called Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As part of this army, Samardžić committed and helped commit killings, forced people to relocate, forced women into sexual slavery, held women in a specific camp where they were raped, and persecuted (Muslim) Bosniak civilians on national, religious, ethnical and gender grounds.

The Court dismissed Samardžić' complaints that he had had no opportunity to (sufficiently) cross-examine the witnesses, as it found that he had been sufficiently able to cross-examine the witnesses and test their reliability. On 7 April 2006 Samardžić was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was sentenced to thirteen years and four months imprisonment.

Radovan Stankovic, member of a Serb battalion during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), was initially indicted by the ICTY Prosecutor for his alleged involvement in crimes against humanity in 1996 and 1999. However, his case was ultimately referred to the Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2005.

He was charged with crimes against humanity, as he was accused of having set up a detention centre for (often underaged) women, having incited other soldiers to rape detainees, and having coerced several detainees into forced labour and sexual intercourse. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to determine that he was guilty of four of the six charges, stating that the statements were clear and consistent. Stankovic was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment on 14 November 2006.