Search results

Radovan Stankovic, member of a Serb battalion during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), was initially indicted by the ICTY Prosecutor for his alleged involvement in crimes against humanity in 1996 and 1999. However, his case was ultimately referred to the Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2005.

He was charged with crimes against humanity, as he was accused of having set up a detention centre for (often underaged) women, having incited other soldiers to rape detainees, and having coerced several detainees into forced labour and sexual intercourse. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to determine that he was guilty of four of the six charges, stating that the statements were clear and consistent. Stankovic was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment on 14 November 2006.

The prosecution appealed against the sentence of 16 years' imprisonment and the acquittal of one of the charges. Stankovic himself basically contested all the Court’s findings, most notably stating that the witness statements were false and fabricated. The Appellate Panel of the left intact almost the entire verdict, though it did raise the sentence to 20 years imprisonment. Shortly afterwards, Stankovic escaped from jail. He was recaptured in January 2012. His five years on the run cost him an additional two years of imprisonment.

Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official person. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.

The Second Instance Court upheld the appeals of the accused in part, modifying the sentences imposed. The reason for this modification was the errors made by the First Instance Court in weighting and balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the taking into consideration factors that pertained to the substantial analysis of the offence (and therefore should not have been considered in the sentencing phase). Accordingly, the Appellate Panel modified this judgement, sentencing Bektaševic to 8 years 4 months, Cesur to 6 years 6 months, Ikanović to 4 years and Hasanović to 6 months.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This decision is the first in a line of proceedings that culminated in November 2012 by which the plaintiffs, victims of the regime, sought damages for the harm they suffered. 

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.

On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request on both aspects raised by it. First, the Court of Appeals found that the scope of the record that will be reviewed must include all the Government Information. Second, the extent to which the Government may withhold information from the detainee’s counsel should not affect the burden vested upon the Government of producing the requested Government Information. 

Ilija Jurišić was a member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina police reserve forces as well as a high-ranking commander in the Tuzla-based State Security Operational Centre. Later, Jurišić exercised control over all armed troops deployed over the territory of Tuzla. In the latter function, Jurišić allegedly ordered his subordinates to attack a column of soldiers of the Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA) on 5 May 1992, while this convoy had just started to withdraw from Tuzla. As a result of this attack, at least 92 JNA soldiers were killed and more than 30 others were injured.