Search results

In May 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Omar H, a foreign fighter convicted of training for terrorism. In upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided that training for terrorism in this context would be interpreted broadly. Thus, researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s other interests in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed Omar H’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. 

In June 1944, German occupation forces in Greece massacred more than 300 inhabitants of the village of Distomo and burnt the village to the ground, as reprisal for a partisan attack on German troops. In 1995, proceedings against Germany were instituted before the Greek courts, by over 250 relatives of the victims of the massacre, claiming compensation for loss of life and property. The Court of Livadia, Greece, held Germany liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the claimants. Germany appealed to the Greek Supreme Court, on the ground that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the Greek courts, on the basis of state immunity.

The Greek Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and rejected Germany’s claim of jurisdictional immunity. The Court denied German immunity applying Article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity, considered to correspond to customary international law. Moreover, the Court held that violation of peremptory norms would have the legal effect of implicitly waiving the jurisdictional immunity. It reasoned that torts in breach of rules of peremptory international law cannot be claimed to be acts jure imperii, concluding that Germany, by breaching jus cogens, had implicitly waived its immunity.

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Habré as well as members of the DDS, and its specialised branch the Special Rapid Action Brigade (Brigade Spéciale d'Intervention Rapide (BSIR)) were named in complaints filed by victims of the regime before the Court of First Instance in N’Djaména.

The Court held, however, that in light of an ordinance establishing a special criminal court of justice to try Habré and the other officials of the regime, it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case or admit the complaints of the parties. This decision is the first in a long line of case-law spanning proceedings in Chad, Senegal, Belgium and The Netherlands attempting to bring Habré to justice.

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Habré as well as members of the DDS, and its specialised branch the Special Rapid Action Brigade (Brigade Spéciale d'Intervention Rapide (BSIR)) were named in complaints filed by victims of the regime before the Court of First Instance in N’Djaména.

The Court of First Instance held that it was incompetent to hear the case as an Ordinance of 27 February 1993 provided that a special criminal curt of justice shall have jurisdiction. The victims appealed to the Constitutional Court for a finding that the Ordinance was unconstitutional as it purported to create a second judicial order in violation of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court accepted the arguments of the victims considering that the ordinance in question was indeed unconstitutional and should be repealed. This decision was the last in proceedings against Habré in his native Chad until 2008 when he would be tried and convicted in absentia. 

Momčilo Mandić, who was Assistant Minister of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in April 1996, was indicted before the Court of BiH in 2006 on allegations of involvement in war crimes against civilians and crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflicts that broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, and which lasted until 1995. Mandić was accused of directing the attack against the Training Centre for Personnel of the BiH Ministry of Interior – one of the events that sparked the war – and of ordering (or at least failing to take reasonable measures against) subordinates to detain and mistreat several non-Serb civilians.

Mandić was acquitted by the Court in first instance, as it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had been involved in these acts, and neither could it be established that he was, indeed, a superior with the possibility to either order such acts to be committed or to take measures against subordinates who were about to or had committed the acts. The prosecution appealed, but to no avail; on 1 September 2009, the Appellate Panel upheld the acquittal.