Search results

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings. By a decision of 25 November 1998, the House of Lords in a 3:2 majority held that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings and could therefore be extradited.

In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied. Sumner was unsuccessful in appealing to this judgment. The full chamber of South Australia’s Supreme Court reiterated that the interlocutory appeal to prevent the start of constructing the bridge should be denied, as there was no serious case to be tried. It did so, most importantly, because the ‘underpinning’ of the case, the allegation that building the bridge was in essence a genocidal act, was not substantiated with referral to domestic law.

Jelisić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. During this time, the Serb forces obtained control over the area and expelled the Croat and Muslim residents from their homes. The non-Serbs were detained in collection centres, such as the Luka camp near the town of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Those detained were subjected to inhumane conditions, killings and mistreatments. Jelisić regularly entered the Luka camp and beat, mistreated and often killed the detainees.

Jelisić pleaded not guilty to genocide and guilty to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Trial Chamber I held that the requirements of his guilty plea have been fulfilled and, subsequently, it found Jelisić guilty of all counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes to which he pleaded guilty.

With respect to genocide, Trial Chamber I found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a special plan to destroy the Muslim group (the special intent element required for the crime of genocide) in Brčko, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similarly, Trial Chamber I found that even Jelisić himself did not have this special intent. Therefore, he was acquitted of the charge of genocide. 

Jelisić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.