Search results

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes. 

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.

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.  

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Initial attempts to make him stand trial for crimes of conspiracy before a United States military commission were ultimately unsuccessful as the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that trial before such a commission would be unlawful. In response, Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act on the basis of which Hamdan was newly charged for counts of conspiracy and material support for terrorism. He was tried and convicted by a military commission for material support for terrorism and sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment, which he concluded in his native Yemen in 2008.

The present decision is the result of his appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated Hamdan’s conviction on the grounds that material support for terrorism was not a war crime under international law prior to 2001 at the time of Hamdan’s relevant conduct, therefore the military commission could not try and convict him on this basis.