Search results

Dual Australian-Serbian citizen “Captain Dragan” (Dragan Vasiljkovic, known in Australia as Daniel Snedden) was the first Australian citizen to be extradited from Australia. Croatia alleges that Snedden committed war crimes against prisoners of war and civilians in 1991 and 1993 whilst in command of Serbian paramilitary troops. 

In this case, the Court held that there was no reviewable error in the Minister’s determination under Section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Snedden should be extradited. While the determination process had taken a considerable time, delay did not lead to the expiration of the Minister’s power, nor had procedural unfairness been demonstrated.

The Court also held that because the Minister was not bound to consider Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention in making his determination, any errors in the interpretation of that Article would not vitiate the decision. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the interpretation.

This case highlights the desirability of domestic legislation implementing international agreements in jurisdictions such as Australia where international agreements entered into by the country are not automatically binding in the domestic legal system.

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Mizanur Rahman were charged with inviting support for the Islamic State, which is designated as a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom. Both men are well-known speakers who have publicly supported the Islamic State, including by attending protests at which Islamic State banners were displayed.

While Choudary and Rahman’s speeches did not explicitly invite violence, the Court found them to be clear statements of support for the Islamic State, based on the common-sense meaning of the word “support.” According to the Court, “support” is not limited only to assistance that is practical or tangible, but also extends to support in the form of endorsement of approval of a proscribed organisation.

Finally, the Court addressed the appellants’ contention that the law in question violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court found the right to freedom of expression to be not absolute, specifically when the law prescribes the criminalization of the conduct and its purpose is to respond to issues such as national security which are listed in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Eyad Al-Gharib is a Syrian citizen who was a member of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate until 2012. Due to his conduct during the Arab Spring protests in Syria, he was found guilty by a German court of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in the form of torture and deprivation of liberty and sentences to 4.5 years of imprisonment. 

The offences in question occurred in Branch 251 and Section 40, which are part of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. In September or October 2011, a demonstration took place in the town of Douma. Members of Branch 251 and Section 40, including Mr. Al-Gharib, were deployed to deal with the demonstration. The officers shot at the demonstrators, and when the demonstrators tried to flee, the security forces, among them Mr. Al-Gharib, chased and arrested a large number of them and forced them into waiting buses. Thirty demonstrators were then taken to Branch 251, escorted by Mr. Al-Gharib. They were beaten on the busses and upon their arrival. They were then held in Branch 251 for at least several days. The conditions of detention were typical for the Branch: severely overcrowded underground detention rooms, partly without daylight; scarce food; terrible hygienic conditions; no information of the reason of detention or its duration; and, no information for the relatives of the detainees regarding their fate. The vast majority of the detainees were subjected to systematic physical violence during their detention and interrogation. 

This judgment was the first court decision against a former agent of the Syrian government regarding the government-led crimes against humanity in Syria. This in turn permitted the Court to shed light on the repressive practices of the Syrian State apparatus.

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanziga) 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). By the present decision, the Appeals Commission for Refugees confirmed the rejection and concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990. 

Désiré Munyaneza was born in December 1966 in Rwanda. Between the beginning of April and the end of July 1994, Hutus killed approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. During that period, Munyaneza was one of the leaders of the Interahamwe Hutu paramilitary organisation in Butare, which played a major role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In 1997, Munyaneza fled to Canada to avoid prosecution. However, in October 2005 he was arrested in Canada on suspicion of his involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In May 2009, the Quebec Superior Court found Munyaneza guilty for the criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for abducting, raping, sexually assaulting, and killing Tutsis, and for pillaging of their properties. He was sentenced to life in prison.