Search results

Following the death of Hutu Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994, the newly installed and Hutu dominated Interim Government adopted and implemented a policy to execute all Tutsi civilians and moderate Hutu. Some 800,000 people died in the course of the genocide.

The Appellants in the present case, Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza held the posts of Minister for Trade and Civil Service respectively in the Interim Government. They were convicted by Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Their conviction was based upon their role in the decision to remove the Tutsi prefect of Butare and their presence at the installation ceremony of the new prefect at which Interim President Sindikubwabo incited the massacre of Tutsi civilians in Butare. The Appeals Chamber overturned the decision of the Trial Chamber on the grounds that the Appellants did not possess the necessary intent for conspiracy and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. They were consequently acquitted of all charges and released.

Momčilo Perišić was born on 22 May 1944 in Koštunići, Serbia. During the period August 1993 until December 1998, he was chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army (VJ). The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague started criminal proceedings against him. Perišić was found guilty of planning and executing an attack on Srebrenica, at the time of the attack an area considered a so-called “safe area”, and for the killings of thousands of Muslims living there. In addition, Perišić was also found guilty for killing seven people and injuring approximately 200 people in Zagreb on 2 and 3 May 1995 with the help of the Army of Serbian Krajina (SVK). Perišić appealed against the decision. On 28 February 2013, the ICTY acquitted Perišić and subsequently released him.

Dual Australian-Serbian citizen “Captain Dragan” (Dragan Vasiljkovic, known in Australia as Daniel Snedden) was the first Australian citizen to be extradited from Australia. Croatia alleges that Snedden committed war crimes against prisoners of war and civilians in 1991 and 1993 whilst in command of Serbian paramilitary troops. 

In this case, the Court held that there was no reviewable error in the Minister’s determination under Section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Snedden should be extradited. While the determination process had taken a considerable time, delay did not lead to the expiration of the Minister’s power, nor had procedural unfairness been demonstrated.

The Court also held that because the Minister was not bound to consider Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention in making his determination, any errors in the interpretation of that Article would not vitiate the decision. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the interpretation.

This case highlights the desirability of domestic legislation implementing international agreements in jurisdictions such as Australia where international agreements entered into by the country are not automatically binding in the domestic legal system.

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for complicity in war crimes committed by Taylor’s regime and the supply of weapons. Kouwenhoven appealed, arguing that the amnesty scheme approved by Charles Taylor shortly before his resignation prevented him from being prosecuted. 

In a decision of 18 December 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld Kouwenhoven’s conviction, finding it did not have the competence to assess the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Liberian law and that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the amnesty scheme did not prevent the prosecution of Kouwenhoven due to the circumstances in which the scheme was introduced and the obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes. 

Mr. Eyad Al-Gharib is a Syrian citizen who was a member of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate until 2012. Due to his conduct during the Arab Spring protests in Syria, he was found guilty by a German court of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in the form of torture and deprivation of liberty and sentences to 4.5 years of imprisonment. 

The offences in question occurred in Branch 251 and Section 40, which are part of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. In September or October 2011, a demonstration took place in the town of Douma. Members of Branch 251 and Section 40, including Mr. Al-Gharib, were deployed to deal with the demonstration. The officers shot at the demonstrators, and when the demonstrators tried to flee, the security forces, among them Mr. Al-Gharib, chased and arrested a large number of them and forced them into waiting buses. Thirty demonstrators were then taken to Branch 251, escorted by Mr. Al-Gharib. They were beaten on the busses and upon their arrival. They were then held in Branch 251 for at least several days. The conditions of detention were typical for the Branch: severely overcrowded underground detention rooms, partly without daylight; scarce food; terrible hygienic conditions; no information of the reason of detention or its duration; and, no information for the relatives of the detainees regarding their fate. The vast majority of the detainees were subjected to systematic physical violence during their detention and interrogation. 

This judgment was the first court decision against a former agent of the Syrian government regarding the government-led crimes against humanity in Syria. This in turn permitted the Court to shed light on the repressive practices of the Syrian State apparatus.