Search results

The armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo opposed numerous tribes of different ethnicities in their struggle to gain power and territory, particularly over the Ituri provence in the north-eastern part of the DRC, an area rich in natural resources such as gold and diamonds. One such group, the Union Patriotique des Congolais, was established in 2000 and appointed as its chairman, the Accused, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. He was also the commander in chief of the armed wing of the UPC, the Front Patriotique pour la Libération du Congo. This armed group was well-known for its use of young children to participate in the hostilities, from fighting, to cooking, cleaning, spying, and being used as sexual slaves.

Trial Chamber I, in the International Criminal Court’s first verdict, convicted Thomas Lubanga of the offense of conscripting, enlisting or using children to actively participate in hostilities. In defining active participation, the Chamber adopted a broad definition so as to include children involved even indirectly, so long as their contribution placed them in real danger as a potential target. Unfortunately, the Chamber did not discuss whether sexual violence against these children also fell within the scope of the offense.

Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. On 6 August 2008, a petition was launched to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Djamel Ameziane alleging that Ameziane, while in US custody, has been subjected to torture, cruel and degrading treatment and if he would be transferred back to Algeria, he would be at risk of serious harm. On 20 August 2008, the IACHR issued an Urgent Precautionary Measure, requesting the US to take all measures necessary to ensure that Ameziane would not be subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The IACHR examined the admissibility, and on 20 March 2012, it concluded that the petition filed on behalf of Ameziane is admissible. The Commission established that it had personal and temporal jurisdiction. With respect to territorial jurisdiction, it found that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man allowed for an extraterritorial scope where the person concerned was subject to the control of State party to the Declaration despite the fact that the person was physically present on the territory of a different State. The Commission found no other procedural obstacles that would prevent it from proceeding to the merits phase of the case, and therefore, found the case to be admissible.

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the success of the Rwandan Patriotic Front in gaining control of the country, members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and the Interahamwe militia who were widely considered to be responsible for the genocide, fled to the Kivu provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These exiled forces organised themselves into political and military groups designed to oppose the new Rwandan government.

One of these groups was the Forces Démocratiques pour la Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR) led by Ignace Murwanashyaka. The FDLR, composed of a military and a political wing, was coordinated by its Steering Committee of which the Suspect, Callixte Mbarushimana, was a member. The Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleges that Mbarushimana was responsible for the FDLR’s perpetration of attacks against the civilian populations in the Kivu provinces throughout 2009. The objective of these attacks, which included murder, rape, torture, mutilation and pillage, was to create a humanitarian catastrophe that would place pressure on the international community and draw attention to the FDLR’s political demands.

By a decision of 16 December 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC declined to confirm the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Mbarushimana thereby refusing to allow the case to continue to trial on the grounds that the Prosecution had not proved a number of key elements including the existence of a policy to attack the civilian population, and the existence of a group of persons acting with the common purpose of perpetrating crimes. Mbarushimana was subsequently released from the custody of the ICC and returned to France where he had been living since fleeing Rwanda. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Appeals Chamber of the ICC in its judgment of 30 May 2012.

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this. In this phase of the proceedings, the British government basically argued that the events in Kenya happened too long ago to be considered on trial. The Court rejected this argument, stating that British law allowed Courts to let cases proceed which happened a long time ago. Moreover, the Court held that there were sufficient primary sources to establish what took place in the detention camps in Kenya and the UK Government’s involvement in this matter.  

The current judgment is one out of nine in a piracy case before the Dutch courts. By the end of 2010, a number of Somali men in a skiff took over the Iranian dhow 'Feddah' somewhere near the Gulf of Aden, in order to use it as base of operations to further hijack bigger ships at open sea. Unfortunately for them, Dutch Navy vessel HMS Tromp was in the neighbourhood as part of NATO's anti-piracy operation Ocean Shield. When Navy marines approached the apparently suspicious Feddah in two inflatable boats, several pirates started firing their machine guns and RPG's at them. An exchange of fire ensued, killing two pirates and injuring another six. In total, sixteen were captured, of whom seven were released soon after. Nine others, including V01, were prosecuted for piracy (in the form of sea robbery) and unlawfully attacking Navy personnel.

In first instance, V01 and the other suspects were acquitted from the charges of attemped murder/manslaughter of Navy personnel, since it could not be established who had shot, while it had become clear that certain suspects had intentionally refrained from shooting as they wanted no trouble with the Navy. However, by intentionally and knowingly cooperating to take over the Feddah and aiming to use it to hijack other ships, the suspects had indeed committed acts of piracy and were sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment. 

The judgment and sentence were confirmed in appeal. However, the Court of Appeal emphasised the extraordinary nature of anti-piracy operations: because of their inherently military nature, certain irreparable formal defects were given no (substantial) consequences in the current case, where the outcome may have been different in a 'regular' case.