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 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.

Lieutenant Colonel Tharcisse Muvunyi was the former Commander of the Rwandan military school, École des sous-officiers (ESO). On 12 September 2006, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found him guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (other inhumane acts). The Chamber acquitted him of rape as a crime against humanity and of the alternative charge of complicity in genocide.

The Chamber took into account the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced Muvunyi to 25 years of imprisonment.  Aggravating factors considered by the Chamber were the ethnic separation and subsequent killing of orphan children at the Groupe Scolaire by soldiers under the Muvunyi's command in collaboration with civilian militia. In addition, the fact that Muvunyi had chastised the bourgmestre (mayor) of the Nyakizu community for hiding a Tutsi man, who was later killed by an armed Hutu mob under Muvunyi’s instructions, was also considered an aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors taken into account were the good character of Muvunyi prior to 1994, his family status, the fact that he had spent most of his life working for the defence of his country and that he was regarded as a highly respected and devout person. 

The Bosnian Serb Forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and Žepa between March and September 1995. 

After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, the men were separated from the women, children and elderly, and transported to locations where they were detained and killed. 

The Trial Chamber found that these acts constituted genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Chamber found that there were two separate criminal plans, the first of which aimed to murder the Bosnian Muslim men, and the second to remove the civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa. 

For their acts and omissions, the seven accused were found guilty on several counts. The Chamber found all of the accused responsible on counts of crimes against humanity. Popović, Beara, Nikolić, and Borovčanin were found guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war, and with the exception of Borovčanin, they were also found guilty on charges of genocide. 

While Popović and Beara received a punishment of life imprisonment, the rest received sentences between 5 and 35 years of imprisonment.

In 2006, Jennifer Harbury, the wife of ex-rebel commander Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez who was killed in Guatemala in the early 1990s, brought a complaint against U.S. governmental officials. Harbury claimed that her husband was captured in 1992 by Guatemalan army officers who were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Harbury claimed that Bamaca was physically abused and tortured during his detention in order to extract information from him about the Guatemalan rebel forces.

Harbury’s tort claim was dismissed because the District Court found that it did not have authority to rule on it since the damage occurred in another state, namely in Guatemala. On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the case involved political questions which are non-justiciable, and, in addition, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Harbury’s tort claim.

On 25 February 2010 the ICTR delivered its judgment on the case of Ephrem Setako, a former senior Rwandan military officer. Lieutenant Colonel Ephrem Setako was the head of the division of legal affairs at the Ministry of Defence in Kigali in 1994. The Prosecution charged him with six counts: genocide or complicity in genocide, murder and extermination as crimes against humanity, serious violations (violence to life and pillage) of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, for his role in the attacks against Tutsis in Ruhengeri and Kigali.

The Trial Chamber found Setako guilty of genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and violence to life as a war crime for ordering the killings of between 30 to 40 ethnic Tutsi refugees at Mukamira military camp on 25 April 1994 and the death of nine or 10 Tutsis on 11 May 1994. The Chamber imposed on Setako a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment.