Search results

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas. In the Treblinka camp in Poland, a Ukrainian guard nicknamed “Ivan the Terrible” was responsible for the operation of the motor to produce the gas and for various abuses perpetrated against the individuals in those camps including severe beatings with bayonets, pipes, whips and swords.

John Demjanjuk was a Ukrainian national who had retired in the United States from his career as a car-worker. He was extradited by the United States to stand trial in Israel when evidence came to light identifying him as Ivan the Terrible. He was convicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against persecuted persons and sentenced to death. On appeal, however, new evidence was introduced that cast a doubt on the identity of Ivan the Terrible. The Supreme Court of Israel found that there was reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible and could not therefore be convicted of the crimes with which he was charged at Treblinka. However, the Supreme Court did state that the evidence did identify Demjanjuk as a member of the SS and a guard at other concentration camps but, since he was not charged with crimes committed in camps other than Treblinka, he had to be acquitted. 

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. He mainly held that the judge should have stepped back from this case, as the prosecution had accused him of being biased.

However, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that only the defendant could appeal against factual questions and the Court considered the question of bias to be a factual question. Other reasons given by the prosecutor for appeal were dismissed as well. For example, the Court held that the prosecutor should have appealed against the dismissal of several charges at an earlier stage. 

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The prosecutor argued that the trial judge should have stepped back from the case, as the prosecutor had accused him of being biased. Also, the prosecutor held that several charges should not have been dismissed and that the bail records should have been admitted during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

In the preliminary ruling under review here, the Court refused to grant permission to appeal, although it did held that the issues raised by the prosecution were constitutional matters. Therefore, the Court ruled, these issues fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. 

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal, as it considered that the trial court had erred in dismissing charges against Basson regarding conspiracy to murder abroad. The trial court had held that since the conspired crimes were committed abroad, Basson could not be tried for conspiracy in South Africa. The Constitutional Court rejected that reasoning, stating that there was a close link between South Africa and the crimes committed.  

During the armed conflict that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia pitting Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) was the official military formation of the Bosnian Croats. The Accused, Tomo Jurinović, was a member of the HVO wing in Kotor Varoš. On 31 July 1992, he is alleged to have forcibly removed a family from their home in Novo Selo with three other members of the HVO. The family was then marched to the village of Ravne where they were detained by the Accused and others on the premises of a school. During this march, the family was routinely abused and one of its members died.

The Accused was indicted for war crimes by the Prosecutor’s Office in the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon request of the Prosecutor and with support of counsel for the Accused, the Court decided to transfer the case to the court of Banja Luka. The factors that were taken into consideration by the Court included the simplicity of the case by comparison to others before the Court (the Accused did not occupy the role of a commander, there was only one deceased, the case concerned one incident), the workload of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office and the expenses that could be saved by transferring the case.