Search results

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanzigas) is the widow of former Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana whose death on 6 April 1994 marked the beginning of the Rwandan genocide that was to result in the death of some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the lapse of a few months. Agathe Habyarimana is frequently regarded as one of the powers behind Juvénal habyarimana’s Presidencey and as part of the inner circle responsible for the planification and organisation of the Rwandan genocide. On 9 April 1994, she was airlifted to France.

In July 2004, she applied for refugee status but her application was denied by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). The rejection was confirmed on appeal by the Appeals Commission for Refugees in February 2007.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, Agathe Habyarimana sought to prove that the Appeals Commission had committed an error in law and in fact when it concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990 and ultimately denied her request to overturn the rejection of her request for refugee status. The Conseil d’Etat rejected the appeal by a decision of 16 October 2009.

Case 002/01 concerns the charges of crimes against humanity against Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea and Nuon Chea, former Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, committed during the forced evacuation of Cambodians to labour camps and for the executions that occurred at Tuol Po Chrey. On 7 August 2014, the Trial Chamber found both accused guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both the Prosecution and Defence appealed the decision. 

The Supreme Court Chamber on 23 November 2016 issued an appeals judgement reversing some of the convictions and affirming the rest. At issue in the appeal was whether the Trial Chamber correctly defined the elements of the murder and extermination crimes against humanity. The Supreme Court Chamber affirmed the murder definition and charges, while finding that extermination requires that the accused had the direct intent to kill on a large scale. Under this definition, the Chamber reversed the convictions for the crime of extermination. The Chamber found insufficient evidence to support convictions as there were too few witnesses to support key facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with this reversal, the Supreme Court Chamber affirmed the life imprisonment sentences of both accused.

After the fall of the Cambodian government in 1975, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Pol Pot, came to power and renamed the State the Democratic Kampuchea. An armed conflict broke out with Vietnam, which lasted until 1979. From 1975 until 1979, Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea sought to establish a revolutionary State and introduced a policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies, a form of physical and psychological destruction that consisted of arbitrary detention, torture and execution. This policy lead to the deaths of an estimated two million people.

The Accused, Ieng Thirith, was the highest-ranking female in the regime, Pol Pot’s sister-in-law and the wife of Ieng Sary, the regime’s former Foreign Minister. Ieng Thirith was indicted in 2010 on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for her role in the events. In September 2012, on the basis of repeated examinations by multiple medical experts, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia found the now 80-year-old Ieng Thirith unfit to stand trial due to her dementia and released her subject to certain conditions. Although the charges have not been withdrawn, a trial is unlikely to happen in the future considering her age and mental state.

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

The present decision was his final appeal challenging the proceedings against him on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his alleged crimes had expired and that the French law of 1964 which held that there are no statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity was contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. The Supreme Court of France (Criminal Law Chamber) rejected the appeal. It held that it was a general principle of civilised nations that crimes against humanity were not subject to statutes of limitation, meaning that an individual suspected of having committed them could be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago the alleged crimes occurred. 

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained. A crucial question in his case has been the qualification of the crimes with which he is charged: crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago they were committed. By contrast, war crimes are subject to the French statute of limitations of 10 years. The present decision was an appeal by a widow, a victim of Barbie’s who had lost her husband and her son during the war, against a decision of a lower court which held that her application to become a civil party was inadmissible as the she was a victim of war crimes and not crimes against humanity, and thus the 10 year statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court of France overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal of Lyon, finding that a crime can simultaneously be qualified as a crime against humanity and a war crime.