skip navigation

Search results

> Refine results with advanced case search

725 results (ordered by date)

<< first < prev   page 16 of 145   next > last >>

Kayinamura : Public Prosecutor v. Wellars Kayinamura

Arrêt, 29 Dec 1998, Appeal Court of Kigali / Cour d'Appel de Kigali, Rwanda


Pinochet: Regina (the Crown) v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet; Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet

Judgment, 24 Mar 1999, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

The present decision of 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords held that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity in respect of charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture where such conduct was committed after 8 December 1988, the date upon which the 1984 Torture Convention entered into force in the UK. This temporal qualification significantly limited the charges for which Pinochet can be extradited to Spain as the majority of the conduct alleged was either not an extraditable offence or was committed prior to this date. Under English law, it was now for the Home Secretary, then Jack Straw, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed with extradition. 


Kayishema & Ruzindana: The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana

Judgement / Sentence, 21 May 1999, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

The present case concerned two Accused, Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema, born in Kibuye Prefecture, Rwanda, was educated as a medical doctor and elected prefect of Kibuye in July 1992, a position which he held until July 1994. Ruzindana was also born in Kibuye prefecture and was a successful businessman.

The Prosecution charged Kayishema with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacre at the Catholic Church and Home St. Jean on 17 April 1994, in the massacre at the Stadium in Kibuye Town on about 18 April 1994, in the massacre at the Church in Mubuga on about 14 April 1994 and in the massacres in the area of Bisesero from about 9 April 1994 through 30 June 1994. The Prosecution charged Ruzindana with genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination and other inhumane acts) and war crimes for his role in the massacres in Bisesero.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR convicted Kayishema and Ruzindana on the counts of genocide and dismissed the other counts. The Chamber sentenced Kayishema to life imprisonment and Ruzindana to 25 years' imprisonment.


Saevecke: The Chief Prosecutor v. Theodor Saevecke

Sentenza, 9 Jun 1999, MilitaryTribunal of Torino, Italy


Suresh v. Canada: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Reasons for Order, 11 Jun 1999, Federal Court, Canada

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

Manickavasagam Suresh fled from Sri Lanka to Canada, was granted a refugee status there, but was ultimately denied a permanent status as it was alleged that he supported the Tamil Tigers. Since Canada considered the Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organisation, it started the procedure to deport Suresh to Sri Lanka. Suresh went to court, stating, among other things, that deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement. The Court disagreed, stating, most importantly, that the Minister was allowed to enter into a balancing act between national security and Suresh’s individual rights. The Court did not consider the result of this balancing act to be unreasonable, given the evidence of the Tamil Tigers’ activities and Suresh role therein. Also, the Court stated that Suresh had not established ‘substantial grounds’ that he would be subjected to torture. 


<< first < prev   page 16 of 145   next > last >>