Search results

At the end of World War II, Michael Seifert, a Ukrainian national who had joined the SS, served as a guard at the Bolzano transit concentration camp. Here, together with another Ukrainian national, and upon the orders (or with acquiescence) of his superior Cologna, he participated in the murder and unlawful killing of internees of the Bolzano camp. In 1951 Michael Seifert moved to Canada where he lived until he was extradited to Italy in 2008.

In 2000, when he was still living in Canada, he was tried in absentia by the Military Tribunal of Verona and charged with acts of violence and murder under Articles 13 and 185 of the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War. The Military Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to try the case, as the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War also applies to soldiers of the enemy’s armed forces and members of the SS (as Seifert was), are to be considered part of the Third Reich’s armed forces. The Tribunal rejected Seifert’s defence that he acted on orders of his superior, stating that the carrying out of superior orders is no defence to war crimes, as the order to commit such crimes is clearly unlawful and thus allows the subordinate to challenge it.

The Court found Seifert guilty of 11 murders and sentenced him to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. He was indicted by the investigating judge in Senegal for complicity in crimes of torture committed in Chad.

The present decision of the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Court of Appeal of Dakar barring criminal proceedings against Habré on the grounds that the Senegalese courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals for acts of torture committed outside Senegal. The Supreme Court found that there was no provision in domestic legislation establishing jurisdiction over such offences.

During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of crimes were perpetrated by the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups. These crimes were largely directed against the Timorese civilian population, in particular, against those individuals suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused in the present case, Joseph Leki, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. As part of his involvement with the militia, he took part in two attacks in September 1999 in which groups of Timorese individuals were surrounded and fired upon by the militia whilst they were resting. As a result of these attacks, four individuals were killed. 

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Leki for all four murders. Although in three of the four, he had not actually fired the shot, the Panels held him responsible for having contributed logistically and morally to the commission of the crimes by other members of the militia group. In the fourth instance, although Leki had fired the shot, the Panels excluded his responsibility as a principal perpetrator because he had been threatened with death if he did not follow the order to shoot. However, he remained liable on the same grounds as for the other three murders. The Special Panels sentenced Leki to 13 years’ imprisonment. The case is the first one in which the defence of duress was upheld although Leki was convicted anyway.

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the Accused of both charges, as it found none of his subordinates to have committed serious human rights abuses. In addition, the Tribunal found that the Accused has not disregarded important information and has acted in the best of his power to stop the human rights violations.

East Timor’s foreign minister described the judgment as ‘scandalous’, whereas activists in Indonesia considered the judgments of the Ad Hoc Tribunal to be “mock trials...[as] a result of pressure from the military.” Florendo de Jesus, one of the witnesses, testified that he had recognized several people among the attackers as TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) members, one of them being his own uncle. The public outrage, mostly taking place in East Timor, came as a consequence of a belief that the Ad Hoc Tribunal is failing to try the Indonesian commanders involved in the violence, as well as from the previous acquittals, specifically those of army Lieutenant Colonel Asep Kuswani, police Lieutenant Colonel Adios Salova and mayor Leonita Martins.

The case encompasses the persecution of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs in 37 municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, and the role played by Biljana Plavšić therein, as a high level political figure. On 2 October 2002, Plavšić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and the Trial Chamber found him guilty accordingly. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crimes as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, the Trial Chamber attached weight to the massive scope and extent of the persecutions; the numbers killed, deported and forcibly expelled; the grossly inhumane treatment of detainees; and the scope of the wanton destruction of property and religious buildings. 

Although the Trial Chamber accepted Biljana Plavšić’s superior position as an aggravating factor, it also took into consideration the following mitigating circumstance: Biljana Plavšić’s guilty plea (together with remorse and reconciliation); her voluntary surrender and post-conflict conduct; as well as her age of 72 years.

Balancing all these factors, the Trial Chamber determined that the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić is 11 years’ imprisonment.