Search results

Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was charged with crimes against humanity (crimes committed on a widespread basis and directed against civilians) and war crimes (prohibited acts committed during war) that occurred during the attack against the Bogoro village on 24 February 2003. In particular, the Accused was suspected of killing, training and using children to support his military activities, destroying houses, and attacking the inhabitants of the Bogoro village. These crimes were allegedly committed by the accused together with Germain Katanga and other persons.

Regarding of the use of children, the Trial Chamber stated that these were often present in military groups in Ituri. However, it was not proven that the accused himself trained or involved children under the age of fifteen in war activities.

In addition, it was not proven that the accused was a commander of Lendu group in February 2003. Therefore, he was released. Nevertheless, regardless of the acquittal of the accused, the Trial Chamber emphasised that the acquittal does not mean that crimes were not committed on 24 February 2003 and that the victims did not suffer damages. 

The Prosecutor v Mathieu Ngudjolo case is the second judgment issued by the ICC, and its first acquittal.

Between 1999 and 2003, Ituri  (Democratic Republic of Congo - DRC) was the scene of a violent conflict between the Lendu, Ngiti and Hema ethnic groups. The Hema-dominated Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) seized control of Bunia, the district capital, in August 2002. On the road between Bunia and the border with Uganda lies the strategically important town of Bogoro, with a UPC military camp in the middle of the town. On 24 February 2003 a Ngiti militia attacked Bogoro, aiming to drive out or eliminate the UPC camp as well as the Hema population. Numerous civilians were murdered and/or raped and the town was partly destroyed.

During this time, Germain Katanga was President of the Ngiti militia and Commander or Chief of Aveba. As such, he formally exercised authority over the attackers; therefore he was indicted by the ICC for participating in the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Bogoro attack.

The Trial Chamber found that Katanga, while formally President, did not have full operational command over all fighting forces and commanders. Therefore he was acquitted of some of the crimes committed. However, since he had provided indispensable logistical aid (providing arms and transportation), he had enabled the militia to commit the crimes. He knew of their intent and intentionally contributed to the perpetration of the crimes; as such, the Chamber found him guilty, as accessory, of the crime against humanity of murder and the war crimes of murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging. 

On 23 May 2014, the Court sentenced Katanga to 12 years' imprisonment with credit for time served in the ICC's detention centre, approximately 7 years.

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations. 

The Stockholm District Court found L. I. guilty for her involvement in IS’ campaign against the Yazidi community. After establishing that IS’ August 2014 Sinjar offensive and the subsequent pattern of killings, enslavement, rape, forced transfer of children, and destruction of religious sites amounted to genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes, the court examined L. I.’s individual accountability.

The nine victims in the case—three women and six children—were all Yazidis captured during the Sinjar attack after their male relatives were executed or went missing. They were moved through various IS collection points and bases in Iraq and Syria, where they endured severe abuse and were traded as slaves. Ultimately, all nine victims came under L. I.’s control at her residence in Raqqa.

The court found that L. I. knowingly accepted these enslaved Yazidis into her home, treated them as her property, and kept them in captivity. She controlled their movement, forced household chores, restricted their food, and physically assaulted at least one woman and one child. She compelled the women and older children to attend Qur’an lessons, pray multiple times daily, and banned the use of the Kurmanji language. She also prohibited Yazidi religious and cultural practices and forced women and girls to wear religiously prescribed clothing. Repeatedly, she called them “infidels” and “slaves” and, in some cases, played IS execution videos to threaten them. L. I. also arranged staged photographs of the victims for sale within IS’ slavery network and helped transfer two family groups to other IS members, knowing they would face further rape, suffering, and separation.

The court concluded that these actions, carried out with IS’ genocidal intent, constituted genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes. It sentenced her to 12 years in prison and awarded 150,00 SEK in moral damages to each surviving victim.

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.