Search results

On 12 June 2002, the Special Panel for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court, East Timor, issued an indictment against Paulo Gonsalves, Marcelino Leto Bili Purificasao and Rosalino Pires, respectively the commander, deputy commander, and a member of the Halilintar Merah Putih militia group based in the subdistrict of Atabae in East Timor. According to the allegations, several victims alleged to be supporters of East Timor’s independence from Indonesia were detained, beaten, and raped by the three members of Halilintar Merah Putih in the period between February and September 1999. In that period, numerous pro-Indonesian militia groups operated throughout East Timor attacking pro-independence supporters with the goal to gain autonomy within Indonesia.

Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim civilians between April 1992 and February 1993. During this time, an armed conflict existed between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Serb Army and paramilitary groups detained Bosnian Muslim women and subjected them to repeated rapes, torture and other mistreatments.

The Trial Chamber found that Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were guilty of crimes against humanity and violations of laws or customs of war, sentencing them to 28, 20, and 12 years of imprisonment, respectively.

The three Appellants raised several grounds of appeal, arguing that the Trial Chamber erred in several of its factual and legal findings. Among others, the Appellants argued that the Trial Chamber erroneously assessed the contextual elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as the separate definitions of the charged offences of enslavement, rape, torture, and outrages upon personal dignity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected all grounds of appeal adduced by the Appellants. Subsequently, it affirmed the sentences imposed by the Trial Chamber.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. 

Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.

The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted the unlawful arrest and detention of hundreds of Jewish persons from 1942 until 1944, who were eventually deported and exterminated at Auschwitz. Pursuant to French criminal law, Papon was under an obligation to surrender to the custody of the Court as a result. Having applied for an exemption to the obligation to surrender and having been denied, Papon left France for Switzerland. However, the Swiss authorities extradited Papon. Upon his arrival in France, the Court of Cassation held that Papon had forfeited his right to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the obligation to surrender.

Papon took his case to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the provision in the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided the grounds upon which his right to appeal was forfeited, violated his right of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court agreed and ordered the French State to pay Papon damages.