Search results

On 19 February 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had convicted a senior Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Mugonero, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, and his son Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, a medical practitioner. On 13 December 2004, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentences of 10 years and 25 years in prison, respectively, imposed by the Trial Chamber.

Specifically, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the conviction of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana for aiding and abetting genocide and convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity after reversing his acquittal for the events which occurred in Bisesero. However, the Appeals Chamber quashed his conviction for aiding and abetting genocide for his participation in events which occurred at Mugonero.

Regarding Gérard Ntakirutimana, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide and convicted him for murder as a crime against humanity in relation to the killing of Charles Ukobizaba. The Appeals Chamber also convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity for the procurement of police officers and ammunition for the attack on the Mugonero complex. In addition, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide in relation to events which occurred at Bisesero, but found that his responsibility was that of an aider and abettor. However, the Chamber set aside his conviction for murder as a crime against humanity under the Bisesero indictment.

The Defence and Prosecution appeals were dismissed in all other respects. 

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.

In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies, and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 21 December 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the named individual defendants were all federal employees at the time (e.g. former Secretaries of Defense, Admirals) and therefore benefited from immunity from prosecution under US law. Alleged violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act do not fall within the accepted exception to immunity because the Act itself does not create substantive rights and obligations that can be violated.