Search results

Emmanuel Rukundo was born on 1 December 1959 in Mukingi Community, Rwanda. In February 1993, by then an ordained priest, he was appointed a military chaplain in the Rwandan army, a position he occupied throughout the genocide in 1994.

On 27 February 2009, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR had found him guilty of genocide and murder and extermination as crimes against humanity in relation to the events at Saint Joseph’s College and for the killing of Tutsi refugees abducted from the Saint Léon Minor Seminary. On 20 October 2010, the Appeals Chamber affirmed these convictions, but only on the basis of his responsibility for aiding and abetting these crimes rather than committing them.

The Trial Chamber had also convicted Rukundo of genocide for causing serious mental harm to a Tutsi woman when he sexually assaulted her, and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber reversed  this conviction for genocide for the sexual assault of the Tutsi woman and reduced Rukundo’s sentence to 23 years of imprisonment. 

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations that had previously resulted in a civil war in the early 1990s. An Interim Government was established, which developed a plan to eradicate the Tutsi “enemy” with the use of the armed forces and various civilian militia groups including the feared Interahamwe.

The six Accused in the present case all represented military, political or civilian authorities in Butare commune: Nyiramasuhuko was the Minister of Family and Women’s Development; Nsabimana served as the prefect of Butare from April until 17 June 1994; Nteziryayo was a member of the Ministry of the Interior; Kanyabashi was the mayor of Ngoma commune; Ndayambaje was the mayor of Muganza commune and Ntahobali was a leader of a unit of the Interahamwe. Following the replacement of the former prefect of Butare by Nsabimana on 20 April 1994, large scale massacres of Tutsi took place in Butare commune. Thousands were slaughtered with machetes and grenades at Mugombwe Church, Kabuye Hill, Kabakobwe Hill and Matyazo Clinic. In line with the Interim Government’s policy, roadblocks were set up at which Tutsi could be identified, separated, abducted, raped and killed by soldiers and Interhamwe alike. Megaphone announcements were heard throughout Butare town encouraging the Hutu to flush out and eradicate their Tutsi enemy.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted each of the Accused variously for genocide, cnspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement of genocide, the crimes against humanity of extermination, persecution and rape and the war crimes of violence to life and outrage supon personal dignity. Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali and Ndayambaje were sentenced to life imprisonment; Kanybashi, Nteziryayo and Nsabimana to 35, 30 and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively.

The case is currently on appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR. 

Mr. Eyad Al-Gharib is a Syrian citizen who was a member of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate until 2012. Due to his conduct during the Arab Spring protests in Syria, he was found guilty by a German court of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in the form of torture and deprivation of liberty and sentences to 4.5 years of imprisonment. 

The offences in question occurred in Branch 251 and Section 40, which are part of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. In September or October 2011, a demonstration took place in the town of Douma. Members of Branch 251 and Section 40, including Mr. Al-Gharib, were deployed to deal with the demonstration. The officers shot at the demonstrators, and when the demonstrators tried to flee, the security forces, among them Mr. Al-Gharib, chased and arrested a large number of them and forced them into waiting buses. Thirty demonstrators were then taken to Branch 251, escorted by Mr. Al-Gharib. They were beaten on the busses and upon their arrival. They were then held in Branch 251 for at least several days. The conditions of detention were typical for the Branch: severely overcrowded underground detention rooms, partly without daylight; scarce food; terrible hygienic conditions; no information of the reason of detention or its duration; and, no information for the relatives of the detainees regarding their fate. The vast majority of the detainees were subjected to systematic physical violence during their detention and interrogation. 

This judgment was the first court decision against a former agent of the Syrian government regarding the government-led crimes against humanity in Syria. This in turn permitted the Court to shed light on the repressive practices of the Syrian State apparatus.

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.

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.

A crucial question in his case has been the qualification of the crimes with which he is charged: crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago they were committed. By contrast, war crimes are subject to the French statute of limitations of 10 years. The present decision was an appeal by a number of civil parties and associations against a decision of a lower court, which held that proceedings against Barbie could not continue for conduct qualified as war crimes as the 10 year window had elapsed. The Supreme Court of France upheld the applicability of the 10 year statute of limitations to war crimes, but it clarified the difference between conduct which may amount at the same time to war crimes and crimes against humanity. As a result, Barbie’s case was sent back to the lower court so that proceedings could continue against him on charges of crimes against humanity, particularly persecution of innocent Jews as part of the "Final Solution". Crimes committed against resistance fighters were, however, excluded as war crimes.