skip navigation

Search results

> Refine results with advanced case search

725 results (ordered by date)

<< first < prev   page 132 of 145   next > last >>

Basebya: The Prosecutor v. Yvonne Basebya

Judgment, 1 Mar 2013, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

The current case, the first case for genocide charges before a Dutch court, took place against the Rwandan Yvonne Basebya. She comes from a wealthy family and married with Augustin Basebya, a high-ranking politician for the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (NRMD). Rwandan authorities alerted the Netherlands about Augustin being listed as wanted in Rwanda in 2007. Investigations followed, leading to Yvonne being suspected as well; ultimately, Yvonne was arrested in 2010 on suspicion of involvement in the Rwandan genocide.

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 1 March 2013 that Yvonne’s guilt on several of the (complicity in, and conspiracy to commit) genocide and war crimes charges could not be established. However, her repeated singing in public of the notorious anti-Tutsi song “Tubatsembatsembe” (meaning: “Let us eliminate them”) before the youth, unemployed and lower or uneducated and using her local notable upper-class position, combined with her repeatedly (even until the day of the judgment) expressed hatred against the Tutsis, did qualify as incitement to genocide. She was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison pursuant to the Dutch War Crimes Act: the maximum sentence at the time (which the Court regretted, noting that the 2003 International Crimes Act which replaced the War Crimes Act had changed this to 30 years).


Bignone (Campo de Mayo): Reynaldo Bignone Causa Nº 2047 / Campo de Mayo Trials

Verdict, 12 Mar 2013, Federal Criminal Oral Tribunal No. 1 of San Martín, Argentina

Reynaldo Bignone, born in 1928, was the de facto president of Argentina from 1982 to 1983 and the last dictator to hold power in the country. As such, he was appointed by the military junta and sought to impose amnesty laws for perpetrators of gross human rights violations before transferring power to the democratically elected Raul Alfonsin. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Argentinean Supreme Court overturned these amnesties and opened the way for prosecutions of those involved in the country’s 1976-1983 “Dirty War”. Since then, Reynaldo Bignone was charged and convicted of crimes against humanity in several trials on the basis of his involvement in the Dirty War. 

In the current case, Bignone was sentenced to life imprisonment for his participation in 20 cases of illegal deprivation of liberty, robbery, torture and murder.


A. v. The Minister of Defence

Interim judgment on the appeal against the Court of The Hague’s judgment of 1 November 2005, 25 Mar 2013, Administrative High Court Three-judge Section, The Netherlands

The appellant is a former soldier of Dutchbat III, a battalion which was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission that was charged with the protection of civilians in the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. The appellant claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being confronted with the atrocities  against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and experiencing the explosion of a nearby mortar shell. He brought a complaint against the Dutch Minister of Defence and requested compensation for not receiving the necessary care after the mission.

On 1 November 2005, the District Court of The Hague held that the Minister of Defence failed to provide the necessary aftercare for his soldiers after the fall of Srebrenica and upon their return to the Netherlands.

On 25 March 2013, the Administrative High Court of the Netherlands ruled that necessary care was provided during the mission in Srebrenica because the soldiers were trained and equipped. However, the Court affirmed that the Dutch Minister of Defence failed to provide necessary care for his soldiers after they returned home. As a result, the Court found that the Minister could be held liable for the PTSD of the soldier which he developed after the mission.


Japanese Piracy Trial

Judgment, 12 Apr 2013, Tokyo District Court, Japan

On 5 March 2011, four Somalian men armed with submachine guns attempted to board and hijack the Guanabara, a Japanese Mitsui O.S.K. Lines tanker in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Oman. They were captured by the US Navy, and subsequently extradited to Tokyo, Japan, on request of the Japanese coastguard.

Two suspects, Mohamed Urgus Adeysey and Abdinur Hussein Ali, pleaded guilty. From the other two suspects, who were both juvenile at the time the crimes took place, one pleaded guilty and the other not guilty. The Tokyo District Court found all four guilty though, and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from five to eleven years.


Kiobel v. Shell: Esther Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.

Certirorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Court, 17 Apr 2013, Supreme Court, United States

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and refining oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.

The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages. In 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the charges for crimes against humanity of torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, and dismissed the charges against the defendants for extrajudicial killing and violations of the right to life, security and association. On appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide jurisdiction over claims for violations of international law committed by corporations and not individual persons. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants could not continue and all charges were dismissed.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appeals Court's decision, but based it on the ground that Alien Tort Statute has no extraterritorial application and thus does not apply to events that happened outside the United States.


<< first < prev   page 132 of 145   next > last >>