Search results

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.

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters. The Accused, Sabino Gouveia Leite, was the Chief of the village of Guda in the sub-district of Lolotoe.

In May 1999, Leite provided information to the Kaer Metin Merah Putih militia (KMP) regarding the identity of independence supporters or persons associated with or sypathetic to the pro-independence group Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). As a result, three victims were forcible removed from their homes and detained in the home sof various KMP members until July 1999. Others were interrogated and placed in the KORAMIL, a military command centre where they were subject to beatings and extremely unhygienic living conditions.

The Accused pleaded guilty to the crimes against humanity of imprisonment, torture and other inhumane acts. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes.

On 9 November 2004, Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was serving in  Iraq as a member of the US Armed Forces. Nazario was leading a squad of 13 Marines on house-to-house searches. During these searches, Nazario allegedly killed two Iraqis, and encouraged two squad members to shoot two others. The alleged acts took place in Fallujah, Iraq.

In 2007, Jose Louis Nazario was brought before the US District Court in California. He was the first veteran to be tried in a civilian US court for alleged war crimes in Iraq.

The defence argued that there was no evidence of a deceased person, nor had the government provided a name or a sufficient description of any of the alleged victims. Deliberating in less than six hours, the jury found Nazario not guilty of manslaughter or assault. Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was acquitted on all charges on 28 August 2008.

The pronouncement of this judgment constituted one of the fastest completions of a trial of this level in the history of the Tribunal. Nizeyimana, the Accused, known as the ‘Butcher of Butare’, went on trial in January 2011. In 54 trial days, the parties presented evidence from 84 witnesses. During the proceedings almost 130 decisions were issued. The judgment was rendered just over six months from the parties’ closing submissions.

The Accused is a former captain at the Butare military academy called the École des Sous-Officiers (ESO). The Prosecution charged him with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for violence perpetrated in Butare prefecture, and, for the most part, in Butare town for mobilising ESO soldiers and others to rape and kill Tutsis, as well as other civilians.

Nizeyimana was found guilty of genocide, extermination and murder as crimes against humanity and murder as war crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes in relation to the Croatian war of independence.

Glavaš has denied any wrongdoing and protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged the Appellate Division Panel’s findings were based on “political, not legal statements.”