Search results

Tharcisse Renzaho was a Rwandan army officer and waspromoted to the rank of Colonel in July 1992. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, he was Prefect of Kigali-Ville prefecture.

The Prosecution had charged him with genocide, crime against humanity, and war crimes for his role in the relevant events of 1994. On 14 July 2009, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Renzaho for genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity, and murder and rape as war crimes. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Renzaho appealed the judgment on thirteen grounds. He requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn the Trial judgment, acquit him on all counts of the indictment, and order his immediate release. In the alternative, Renzaho requested the Appeals Chamber to a lower sentence that would reflect his true level of responsibility.

The Appeals Chamber granted some of Renzaho’s grounds of appeal and dismissed others. It affirmed Renzaho’s sentence of life imprisonment, subject to credit being given to time already served.  

On 25 February 2010, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR convicted Lieutenant Colonel Ephrem Setako for genocide, extermination as a crime against humanity and violence to life as a war crime for ordering the killings of between 30 to 40 ethnic Tutsi refugees at Mukamira military camp on 25 April 1994 and the death of nine or 10 Tutsis on 11 May 1994. The Chamber imposed on  Setako a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment.

Setako and the Prosecution both appealed the Trial judgment. Setako alleged errors of law and errors of fact of the judgment. The Prosecution submitted three grounds of appeal.

On 28 September 2011, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Setako’s appeal in its entirety, while it partially granted the Prosecution’s appeal but it did not increase Setako’s sentence. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber convicted Setako for murder as a war crime for the killings committed against Tutsis on 11 May 1994.

Anatole Nsengiyumva served as Head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Army General Staff and Commander of the Gisenyi Operational Sector from June 1993 to July 1994. He was initially found guilty by Trial Chamber I of the ICTR on 18 December 2008 of genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts), and violence to life for ordering the killings in Gisenyi town on 7 April, Mudende University, Nyundo Parish and aiding and abetting the killings in Bisesero. The Chamber later reversed some of these convictions and it set aside his sentence to life imprisonment imposing on him a sentence of 15 years imprisonment instead.

Théoneste Bagosora was appointed directeur de cabinet for the Ministry of Defence in June 1992, where he served until July 1994. The Trial Chamber I convicted him for genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, other inhumane acts, and rapes), and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life and outrages upon personal dignity), for his participation in the events in Rwanda in 1994. The Appeals Chamber reversed some of these convictions, setting aside his sentence to life imprisonment and sentencing him to 35 years of imprisonment instead.

The armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo opposed numerous tribes of different ethnicities in their struggle to gain power and territory, particularly over the Ituri province in the north-eastern part of the DRC, an area rich in natural resources such as gold and diamonds. One such group, the Union Patriotique des Congolais, was established in 2000 and appointed Lubanga as its chairman. He was also the commander in chief of the armed wing of the UPC, the Front Patriotique pour la Libération du Congo. This armed group was well known for its use of young children to participate in the hostilities, from fighting, to cooking, cleaning, spying, and being used as sexual slaves.

Lubanga was convicted by Trial Chamber I in the International Criminal Court’s first verdict for the war crime of conscripting, enlisting or using children under the age of 15 to actively participate in hostilities. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment on 10 July 2012, with credit for the 6+ years he had spent in detention in the Netherlands during his trial. In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court assessed the gravity of the crimes by considering the age and particular vulnerability of the victims. However, it also considered that Lubanga’s cooperation with the Court and respectful attitude even despite the Prosecution’s conduct merited mitigation. 

The Filártiga family, Dolly and Dr. Joel Filártiga, Paraguay nationals, claim that on 29 March 1976, Dr. Filártiga’s seventeen-year-old son Joelito Filártiga was kidnapped and tortured to death by the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at that time, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala (Peña). They claim that Joelito was maltreated because his father was a longstanding opponent of the government of Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner who ruled over the country since 1954.

In 1978, Joelito’s sister Dolly Filártiga and (separately) Américo Peña came to the United States. Dolly applied for political asylum, while Peña stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of Peña's presence in the United States and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who arrested and ordered the deportation of Peña for staying well past the expiration of his visa.

Immediately after, on 6 April 1979, the Filártiga family filed a complaint before US courts alleging that Peña had wrongfully caused Joelito's death by torture and seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $ 10,000,000. In support of federal jurisdiction, the Filártiga family relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute of 1789. They also sought to enjoin Peña’s deportation to ensure his availability for testimony at trial. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was absent and for forum non conveniens, but on appeal the Filártiga family succeeded: the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, ruled that even though the Filártiga family did not consist of US nationals and that the crime was committed outside the US, the family was allowed to bring a claim before US courts. It held that torture was a violation of the laws of nations and that federal jurisdiction was provided.