Search results

During the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Zrinko Pinčić was a member of the Croat Defense Council (HVO). Between November 1992 and March 1993, he came to a house in the village of Donje Selo, Konjic Municipality, were Serb civilians were detained. During this time, Pinčić repeatedly took one woman from the room where other civilians were detained, and forced her to sexual intercourse, holding his rifle by the bed and threatening her that he would bring another 15 soldiers to rape her and other detainees, if she refused him.

The Court found Zrinko Pinčić guilty of the criminal offence of War Crimes against Civilians and sentenced him to 9 years imprisonment. The Court first determined that the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina was applicable to the case, and not the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that was in place at the time. Next, the Court determined that Pinčić had committed a war crime against a civilian. This was the case, as the criminal acts of Pinčić were committed in violation of international law as the victim was a civilian and was raped; they were committed in time of armed conflict; the act was connected with the armed conflict as Pinčić was a soldier and lastly because Pinčić committed the offence with premeditated intent and wanted to commit it. In determining the sentence, the Court primarily considered the gravity of the criminal offence and the degree of his criminal liability. The Court considered as extenuating circumstances that Pinčić is father of two children, his fair conduct before the Court, his old age and the fact that he was an 80 per cent disabled veteran.

During the Rwanda genocide, Bikindi was a famous singer and composer, and the leader of a ballet troupe, the Irindiro.

The Prosecution charged Bikindi with six Counts: conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide or, alternatively, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, murder and persecution as crimes against humanity.

On 2 December 2008, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found the Accused guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide for his calls to exterminate Tutsi at the end of June 1994 on the Kivumu-Kayone road and acquitted him on all other Counts. The Chamber further concluded that there were no mitigating factors, and that the fact that the Accused had used his influence to incite genocide was an aggravating factor. The Chamber sentenced Bikindi to 15 years of imprisonment. 

In 1992, Mirsad Repak was a member of the paramilitary Croatian Defence Forces (HOS), in the Dretelj detention camp, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Repak held a middle leader position in the unit. Serbian civilians were detained in the Dretelj camp and held in inhuman conditions, suffering mistreatment and rape. Repak assisted in depriving civilian Serbs of their liberty and was also involved in the interrogation and torture of a woman detained in the camp.

In 1993, Repak fled to Norway and became a Norwegian citizen in 2001. On 8 May 2007, he was arrested in Norway and indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The case concerned the question whether the Norwegian Constitution allows the retroactive application of the legislation on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court observed that Article 97 of the Norwegian Constitution prohibits any retroactive application of the law unless similar legislation existed at the time of the alleged crimes. The Court ruled that prosecution was possible since the actions described in the indictment were punishable under the Criminal Code in force in 1992 (the time of the crimes). Repak was therefore found guilty of war crimes, but was acquitted for the charges of crimes against humanity, as there was no comparable legislation in 1992. Repak was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay damages of a total of NKO 400,000 (approximately 51,000 euro) to the families of eight Serbian victims.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 

At the beginning of 2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.

On 21 February 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.

The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2008.