Search results

Nikola Kovačević was a member of a special unit of the Serb Territorial Defence for the municipality of Sanski Most in north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period between April and August 1992, Kovačević and members of the army of the former Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were involved in the persecution of Bosnian Muslims and Croats of the municipality of Sanski Most. In addition, Kovačević initiated the transfer of 60 detainees to the Manjaca concentration camp in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina, and did beat them while they were entering the camp. 

On 3 November 2006, Kovačević was found guilty of crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, illegal detention, inhumane acts, and persecution. Kovačević was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. On 22 June 2007, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Nisvet Gasal was born on 25 May 1964 in Oborci in the municipality of Donji Vakuf, central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Musajb Kukavica was born on 10 March 1970 in Jajce, also located in central Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the armed conflict between the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (August 1993 - March 1994), Gasal served as camp warden of the FC Iskra Stadium detention camp in Bugojno, and Musajb Kukavica served as security commander of the detention camp. In that capacity, they were responsible for the unhygienic living conditions in which the detainees were held, and for a lack of food, water and medical help. They were also responsible for the harm that other guards inflicted on the detainees. Some detainees were forced to perform hard physical work while others were taken to the front line where there were a lot of shootings. On 18 September 2007, the preliminary hearing judge of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found that Gasal and Kukavica could be charged with war crimes against civilians.

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 

Momčilo Krajišnik was found guilty by Trial Chamber I on multiple counts of crimes against humanity for his role in the 1991-1992 events in municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He appealed the decision, representing himself. The Appeals Chamber appointed a counsel as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist his case through the filing of an additional appeal in order to represent Krajišnik's interests.

The Appeals Chamber held that Trial Chamber I made errors with respect to the expansion of the crimes forming part of the joint criminal enterprise of the perpetrators and the manner in which Krajišnik could be held liable for them. Therefore, it acquitted Krajišnik of murder, extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected the arguments of the Prosecution, in which the latter argued that the sentence was not properly determined by Trial Chamber I, and should be raised to life imprisonment.

In light of the acquittals on several counts, the Appeals Chamber reduced Krajišnik's sentence from 27 years to 20 years of imprisonment.

Can a state be held legally responsible for not taking a strong stance against human rights violations committed by another state? In this case, a Palestinian human rights organization requested a UK court to give its legal opinion  about UK foreign policy, in relation to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip during the Winter of 2008/2009 (‘Operation Cast Lead’ or the ‘Gaza War’). The court most important statement was that it did not consider itself authorized to rule on foreign policy. According to the court, foreign policy is made by the government’s executive branch and it should remain within that exclusive domain.