skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: mothers srebrenica netherlands %26 un

> Refine results with advanced case search

474 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 74 of 95   next > last >>

The Prosecutors and the Peoples of the Asia-Pacific Region v. Hirohito et al.: The Prosecutors and the Peoples of the Asia-Pacific Region v. Hirohito Emperor Showa et al.

Judgement on the Common Indictment and the Application for Restitution and Reparation, 4 Dec 2001, The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal For the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, Japan

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).


Semanza: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza

Judgement and Sentence, 15 May 2003, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

The Accused, Laurent Semanza, was the former Bourgmestre (mayor) of Bicumbi commune. He was indicted on 14 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for his role in the Rwandan genocide.

On 15 May 2003, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found him guilty of aiding and abetting genocide during the massacres at Musha Church and Mwulire Hill, which took place on 13 April 1994 and 18 April 1994 respectively. The Chamber also convicted him of extermination as a crime against humanity for his conduct at Musha church and Mwulire Hill. The Trial Chamber further held that Semanza was guilty of torture and murder as crimes against humanity. These convictions arose out of Semanza’s April 1994 incitement of a crowd in Gikoro commune to rape Tutsi women before killing them. He was also held directly responsible for the torture and murder of Rusanganwa, a Tutsi, whom he attacked and killed during the Musha Church massacre.

However, the judgment acquitted the Accused of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, and persecution as a crime against humanity.

The Trial Chamber sentenced the Accused to 25 years of imprisonment. This sentence was reduced by 6 months because of violations of the Accused’s rights that occurred while in detention prior to his transfer to the ICTR.


Kamuhanda: The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda

Judgement, 22 Jan 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, guilty on two counts of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Tribunal sentenced him to prison for the remainder of his life.

The Trial Chamber found the Accused not guilty of five counts in the nine counts indictment against him. They included conspiracy to commit genocide, rape and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, and two counts of violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. The Chamber also dismissed two counts of complicity in genocide and murder as a crime against humanity.

In reaching its guilty verdict on two counts, the Trial Chamber found that  Kamuhanda had the intent to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in whole or in part and was individually criminally responsible for instigating, ordering, aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi by virtue of his role in the killing of members of the Tutsi ethnic group in the Gikomero Parish Compound where he ordered Interahamwe militia, soldiers, and policemen to kill the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that a large number of Tutsi were exterminated as a direct result of Kamuhanda’s participation by ordering, instigating, aiding and abetting the attack at the Gikomero Parish compound.


Ntagerura et al.: The Prosecutor v. André Ntagerura, Emmanuel Bagambiki and Samuel Imanishimwe

Judgement, 25 Feb 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

The three Accused in this case were charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II in connection with the massacres and other crimes committed in Cyangugu Prefecture in 1994.

Trial Chamber III of the ICTR sentenced Samuel Imanishimwe, former military commander in the Rwanda armed forces to 27 years in prison after convicting him on six counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II.

The Chamber found that Imanishimwe, as the commander of Karambo military camp, issued orders to soldiers authorizing the arrest, detention, mistreatment, and execution of civilians. He was also found criminally responsible for extermination and for failing to prevent or to punish his subordinate soldiers’ participation in the massacre at the Gashirabowba football field on 12 April 1994.

Imanishimwe was found guilty of genocide,; of murder, of extermination, of imprisonment, of torture as crimes against humanity, and of serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II, count 13.

However, the Chamber acquitted both André Ntagerura, former Minister of Transport and Communications and Emmanuel Bagambiki, former Prefect of Cyangugu of similar charges.


Rutaganira: The Prosecutor v. Vincent Rutaganira

Judgement and Sentence, 14 Mar 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

From 1985 to 1994, Vincent Rutaganira was conseiller communal (councilor)of Mubuga sector in Kibuye prefecture. On 6 May 1996, the Prosecutor of ICTR charged him with seven counts including genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, murder, extermination and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.

On 7 December 2004, the Prosecutor and the Accused reached an agreement, pursuant to which the latter pleaded guilty to count 16 of the indictment charging him with extermination by omission as a crime against humanity for the massacres against Tutsi civilians at Mubuga church between 14 and 17 April 1994. The Trial Chamber acquitted the Accused on the other charged for lack of evidence.

The Chamber sentenced Rutaganira to 6 years of imprisonment. It took into consideration several mitigating factors including his voluntary surrender to the Tribunal in March 2002, his guilty plea, his good behaviour while in detention, his advanced age of 60 and his ill health. The Chamber further took into account the Accused’s expression of remorse, the assistance he had provided to some victims in Mubuga sector, as well as the lack of previous criminal record.  


<< first < prev   page 74 of 95   next > last >>