Search results

François Karera was officially appointed the prefect of Kigali-Rural prefecture on or around 17 April 1994 and held that position until mid-July 1994. Previously he was a sub-prefect at Kigali-Rural prefecture. From 1975 to 1990, Karera had been mayor of Nyarugenge urban commune, an administrative unit which was later replaced by Kigali-Ville prefecture. During a certain period, he was also president of the MRND party in Nyarugenge commune.

In mid-April 1994, Hutu militiamen and soldiers arrived in Ntarama sector and attacked the Tutsi refugees who were gathered at Ntarama Church, killing several hundreds of Tutsis. Karera was present and encouraged the attackers. In April and May 1994, Tutsis had also been killed in Rushashi commune in Kigali-Rural prefecture and in Nyamirambo sector in Nyarugenge commune, mainly at roadblocks. Karera ordered or instigated these acts. He was found guilty of genocide and extermination and murder as crimes against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced Karera to life imprisonment. 

In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.

Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.

In the present decision, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the decision of the District Court of The Hague that the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over the crime of genocide allegedly commited by the Accused. This does not, however, bar prosecution of the Accused for war crimes and torture. 

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that it was not competent to hear the appeal because the SNCF at the relevant time in question was a private company under the command of the German authorities and not exercising its own public authority. It is for the judicial order, and not the administrative one, to decide on the matter. 

The accused Ivan Hrkač is suspected of committing war crimes against prisoners of war and war crimes against civilians during the armed conflict between the HVO and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993.

At the present moment, Ivan Hrkač is beyond the reach of the judicial authorities.

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.