Search results

The main reason for proceedings against Jeffrey Kennett, the then Premier of Victoria, appears to have been the Premier’s refusal to recognise the Gunai under Booran as a sovereign people and the Land Titles Validation (Ammended) Act, which was passed under the government of Kennett in 1998. This Act confirmed and validated property titles. According to Robbie Thorne, Aboriginal activist, this Act ‘extinguished all the native title the Victorian Aboriginal people ever had’. Arguing that these conditions would lead to mental harm and that these measures were calculated to destroy the Aboriginals, Thorne requested that Kennett would be charged with genocide.

However, Thorne faced the brick wall that many faced before and after him: the Judge ruled that genocide was not a crime under national law. Specifically, the Judge rejected the argument made by some (including a dissenting judge in a previous case) that in some instances, international law can be incorporated into domestic law. With regard to the merits of the case, the judge ruled that the evidence presented by Thorpe did not in itself demonstrate genocidal intent, which is an essential element of genocide. 

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff had already sought (and failed to find) two interlocutory injunctions to prevent a bridge from being built to Hindmarsh in South Australia. It was held that this construction 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. The judge did not agree that the construction would amount to genocide and reiterated earlier judgments that genocide was not a criminal act under Australian law. Treaties are not a direct source of law in Australia, and neither is customary international law.

In 2002, with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.

During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.

Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.

Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.

The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.

Jelisić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. 

Jelisić pleaded not guilty to genocide and guilty to war crimes and crimes against humanity. With respect to genocide, Trial Chamber I found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence to sustain his responsibility. For the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, Trial Chamber I sentenced him to 40 years of imprisonment. Therefore, Trial Chamber I’s acquittal of genocide was appealed by the Prosecutor, and Jelisić was allowed to respond.

The Appeals Chamber allowed the Prosecution’s first two appeals, in which it upheld the argument that Trial Chamber I erred when entered an acquittal without first hearing the Prosecution, and when applied an erroneous legal standard which led it to incorrectly assess the evidence.

The Appeals Chamber was unable to conclude that Jelisić did not possess the special intent required for genocide (the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group). However, the Appeals Chamber declined to reverse the acquittal on genocide.

The Appeals Chamber found an error in Trial Chamber I’s finding that Jelisić was guilty of two murders, when in fact he pleaded guilty to only one.

Jelisić’s sentence was affirmed.

Abilio Soares was governor of East Timor at the time violence broke out in East Timor before, during and after the referendum on independence of Indonesia.

On 20 February 2002 he was indicted on two charges of crimes against humanity: murder and assault/persecution. He was charged with command responsibility for the failings and actions of his subordinates and militias, in relation to events during which anti-independence militias committed massacres, such as in the church in Liquica on 6 April 1999, at the house of pro-independence leader Manuel Carrascalao on 17 April 1999, at the residence of the Bishop of Belo on 6 September 1999 and in the church in Suai on 6 September 1999. In each one of these instances, he was accused of not having exercised his authority in order to prevent these crimes from taking place.

The Court considered that, under command responsibility, Abilio Soares was criminally responsible for the human rights violations perpetrated by his subordinates. To come to this conclusion, the Court considered the following elements: his subordinates were under Soares’ effective control and authority, but he did not exert appropriate and proper control over them;  Abilio Soares was aware, or consciously disregarded information relating to these events, as he was informed of these events by subordinates; and that Soares took no action against those district heads under his control who had committed the murders and assaults (for example to prevent or stop the acts or surrender the perpetrators to authorities for investigation and prosecution).

The Court sentenced Abilio Soares to 3 years’ imprisonment, significantly lower than the minimum sentence of 10 years.