Archive for category Torture
ICC rejects Gbagbo’s appeal against pretrial detention: On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 the ICC announced that former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo must remain in custody until he is tried, rejecting his appeal against his continuous pretrial detention in The Hague. Gbagbo has been in custody for almost two years, and his indictment has not been confirmed; it is still unclear whether he will stand trial. Gbagbo is charged with committing crimes against civilians following the 2010 Ivory Coast elections. (The Associated Press).
U.S. plans to aid Uganda in its search for Kony: The U.S. is reportedly increasing efforts to catch Joseph Kony by possibly stationing Osprey aircraft in Uganda. Such aircraft fly like planes but are capable of landing like helicopters, which would significantly aid African and U.S. troops in searching for Kony. This would also double the number if U.S. troops stationed in Uganda, which is leading the search for Kony. Kony, the commander-in-chief of the rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and three other LRA leaders have been indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The LRA fought the Ugandan government for 20 years, and is allegedly responsible for killing and kidnapping civilians from villages, many of whom were children. (Voice of America).
Chowdhury appeals death sentence handed down by ICT: On Tuesday, 29 October 2013, Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s defense lawyer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the death penalty awarded by with the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), which had sentenced Chowdhury to death by hanging on 1 October 2013 for the torture, murder, and genocide he committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Chowdhury was a Standing Committee member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. (Dhaka Tribune).
STL holds pre-trial conference in Hariri case: On Tuesday, 29 October 2013, the Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is holding a pre-trial conference concerning the case against four Lebanese individuals indicted for assassinating former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and killing 21 others in a 2005 terrorist attack in Beirut. The conference is meant to help shift the case from the pre-trial to the trial stage, and will be open to the public. This is the first time the Trial Chamber has held such a meeting. The case was transferred from the Pre-Trial Chamber to the Trial Chamber, and the trial is set to begin on 13 January 2014. (Kuwait News Agency).
ICC reverses ruling excusing Ruto from attending his trial: The appeals chamber of the ICC ruled on Friday, 25 October 2013 that Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto can only be excused from attending his trial under “exceptional circumstances”, reversing the earlier ruling which had excused Ruto from attending much of his trial. The appeals chamber noted that Ruto may only be excused from attending when judges have considered all other alternatives and it is “strictly necessary”, since Ruto is “not merely a passive observer of the trial but an active participant”. Decisions on whether Ruto will be excused from certain parts of his trial will therefore be made on a case-by-case basis. (Sabahi).
Court/Tribunal: Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone
Decision Title: Judgment
Chamber: Appeals Chamber
Case Name: Prosecutor against Charles Ghankay Taylor
Date: 26 September 2013
**Note: Due to the length of the decision, it is reviewed in two parts**
(continued from Part 1)
Burden of Proof: The defense argued that, in regard to some of the charges, the Trial Chamber impermissibly reversed the burden of proof, in violation of the principle that presumes a defendant’s innocence until proven otherwise. The defense pointed to several specific instances where it argued that the Trial Chamber held findings of guilt to a standard below “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which then forced the defense to rebut this low threshold of guilt.
The Appeals Chamber rejected this argument. It found that the Trial Chamber properly included the right standard and rules pertaining to burden of proof in its decision. The Appeals Chamber rejected the notion that this language in the lower court’s judgment was “boilerplate,” and instead held that it was a sound statement and reflection of the standard that the Trial Court actually applied throughout the rest of its decision. Further, the Appeals Chamber found that the specific instances referenced by the defense did not indicate instances of burden reversal. Rather, the record reflected that the Trial Chamber considered the evidence, and displayed how the Trial Chamber weighed the evidence in light of the allegations and the other evidence. Further, the Trial Chamber is not required to make findings of “beyond a reasonable doubt” on facts that are not essential to a finding of guilt. Noting that it is within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to weigh evidence and, in light of all the other evidence before it, credit such evidence as it deems appropriate, the Appeals Chamber did not find any error in the Trial Chamber’s assessment or crediting of the evidence before it.
Lack of Reasoned Opinion: The defense argued that the Trial Chamber erred in law because it failed to provide a reasoned opinion that adequately explained its reasons for convicting the defendant. The Appeals Chamber rejected this argument, noting that the Trial Chamber’s judgment was quite thorough, detailing how it assessed the facts of the case and the weight of the evidence and testimony against the defendant. Since the defendant, in making its allegation, did not point to specific instances, issues or arguments that it contended the Trial Court erroneously omitted, the Appeals Chamber found no error.
Factual Findings: The defense brought up a number of exceptions to factual findings made by the Trial Chamber, particularly in regard to the makeup, mission and purpose of the rebel groups with which the defendant was associated. The defense also took exception to factual findings regarding the actions of these groups – particularly findings that these groups specifically terrorized civilian populations through sexual violence, physical assault, murder, property destruction, and eviction. The Appeals Chamber however affirmed the Trial Chamber’s findings, and affirmed the lower court’s assessment that these findings demonstrated a deliberate and patterned behavior of terrorism and intimidation on behalf of the terror groups, and that these behaviors were in furtherance of the terror groups’ political and military goals.
Individual Criminal Liability: The defense argued that the Trial Chamber erred in its finding of individual criminal liability for the defendant in four ways: that it erred as a matter of law in its articulation and application of the actus reus requirements for aiding and abetting liability, that it erred in its articulation and application of the mens rea requirements for aiding and abetting liability, that it erred as a matter of law in holding that that “special direction” was not an element of actus reus liability, and that it erred as a matter of law in its articulation and application for planning crimes.
The Appeals Chamber found that the act of aiding and abetting is completed based upon its effect on – or the level of assistance it gives – to the commission of a crime, rather than the particular mode in which that assistance to the crime is rendered. Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, it was not necessary for the Trial Chamber to find that the defendant gave physical assistance to the specific person who committed each enumerated crime. As in the defendant’s case, substantial encouragement, approval for, or moral support given by an individual, that substantially aids in or facilitates the crime, is enough to establish aiding and abetting liability. Such support will establish personal culpability of the individual for the crimes actually committed.
The Appeals Chamber further found that in the Statute governing this tribunal and the laws under which it operates, there is nothing that indicates that “specific direction” is an element of actus reus of aiding and abetting liability, the ICTY decision in Perisic notwithstanding. Significantly, upon its own review of post-World War II international jurisprudence on “specific direction,” the Chamber found no support in international law for the proposition that “specific direction” must be part of aiding and abetting liability; as such, it rejected the finding in Perisic as incorrect for the standard under international law, and declined to follow, instead limiting the precedent in Perisic as articulating the standard under the particular jurisprudence of the ICTY
In regards to mens rea, the Appeals Chamber held that international criminal law establishes liability for an individual’s knowing participation in crime. That is, the individual acts knowing the consequences of his actions or conduct. This knowing participation in the commission of a crime is sufficient to establish individual criminal responsibility for the crimes committed. Further, knowledge of the “likely effects” of one’s assistance in certain criminal conduct is enough to establish culpability under aiding and abetting. Thus the Appeals Chamber found that culpability was correctly assigned to the defendant when it was shown that he knew that his conduct would assist in the commission of crimes. It is not required to show that the defendant knew his conduct would have a “substantial” effect on the commission of the crime, since this is a question of both law and fact, to be decided by the trier of fact.
Finally, the Appeals Chamber rejected the defense’s submission that the Trial Chamber was required to have found that the defendant planned the commission of concrete crimes. Similar to its disposition of the “specific direction” question, the Appeals Chamber found decisions from the ICTY that suggest a “concrete crime” requirement as not dispositive. Rather, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the lower court’s articulation of the law, in which it said that a person engages in planning by designing an act or omission that had a substantial effect on the commission of the actual crime. The Chamber looks to whether, essentially, the defendant gave a substantial contribution to the commission of the crime.
Based upon its affirmance of the legal standards articulated above, the Appeals Chamber affirmed that the factual findings and application of the facts to the law made by the Trial Chamber. As such, it affirmed the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the defendant’s acts and omissions had a substantial effect on the commission of the actual crimes, thus establishing criminal liability under aiding and abetting. Likewise, in reviewing and affirming the facts found by the Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber also affirmed the lower court’s finding that the defendant had the requisite mens rea to establish criminal aiding and abetting liability.
Based upon its review and affirmance of the facts as found by the Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the lower court’s determination that the defendant had criminal liability for participating in the planning of an act or omission that gave substantial effect to the commission of crimes. Likewise, the Appeals Chamber found that the facts as found by the lower court also established the requisite mens rea for planning liability, and mostly affirmed, although stated that liability should be modified to exclude crimes allegedly committed in the Kono District in Sierra Leone.
Fair Trial Rights: The defense alleged a number of “irregularities” in the conduct of the trial at the Trial Chamber. On review, the Appeals Chamber took note of the fact that defense had entirely failed to raise these claims during the trial. Because this deprives the Appeals Chamber the opportunity to review the lower court’s findings on these claims, such a failure can act as a complete bar to consideration of the claims on appeal. In the interests of justice, however, the Appeals Chamber considered the merits. Upon review of the claims, the Appeals Chamber found that the defense had failed to identify any Statutory or procedural rules that were violated in the conduct of the trial, nor did he succeed in showing how the alleged irregularities interfered in or otherwise prejudiced his fair trial rights. As such, the Appeals Chamber rejected defendant’s submissions on these points.
Sentencing: Upon conviction, the Trial Chamber sentenced the defendant to fifty (50) years in prison. Both the defense and the prosecution challenged the sentence. The defense argued that the sentence was “totally unreasonable,” while the prosecution argued that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the totality and severity of the defendant’s conduct. It argued that the Trial Court’s determination that aiding and abetting liability warrants a lesser sentence was wrong.
The Appeals Chamber rejected the defense’s contentions. After reviewing the Statute, the Rules of the Tribunal, and customary international law, however, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the prosecution’s contention that the Trial Chamber erred in law when it determined that aiding and abetting liability per se warrants a lesser sentence. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber properly considered both alleged aggravating and mitigating factors in its sentencing, and its decisions on how these factors played into the sentence were not in error. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the totality of the Trial Chamber’s considerations when sentencing defendant, the Appeals Chamber found that the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber was fair and reasonable.
The judgment of the Trial Chamber, with some small modifications, was affirmed by the Appeals Chamber.
Justice Shireen Avis Fisher wrote a concurring opinion on aiding and abetting liability.
To access the full Decision, click here.
Court/Tribunal: Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone
Decision Title: Judgment
Chamber: Appeals Chamber
Case Name: Prosecutor against Charles Ghankay Taylor
Date: 26 September 2013
Decision Background: This judgment comes from review by the Appeals Chamber of the Trial Court’s decision in the Charles Taylor case. Charles Taylor is a Liberian who, in 1984, formed an armed opposition group, the NPFL, in opposition to the then-president of Liberia. In 1989, he lead the NPFL into Liberia, where he remained throughout the Liberian Civil War until 1989. In August 1997, he was elected President of Liberia. In 2003, an indictment against Taylor was issued by SCSL, along with an arrest warrant. In June of 2003, the indictment and arrest warrant were unsealed; in August 2003, Taylor stepped down from the presidency of Liberia.
The indictment charged Taylor with eleven (11) counts for various forms of crimes against humanity. One other count charged Taylor with serious violations of international humanitarian law, punishable under Article 4 of the Statute, for the conscription of children into armed forces or using them to activity participate in armed hostilities. According to the indictment, the crimes underlying the charges occurred between November 1996 and January 2002 in six locations in Sierra Leone, a country bordering Liberia. The indictment charged Taylor with individual criminal liability for the crimes alleged, stating that by his acts or omissions, Taylor aided and abetted, planned, ordered, instigated, or participated in the crimes committed in Sierra Leone.
Taylor plead not guilty. After trial, the Trial Chamber found Taylor guilty of the charged crimes, finding that he aided and abetted and planned the charged crimes, and thus bore individual criminal liability for their commission. The Trial Chamber sentenced Taylor to one term of fifty (50) years in prison.
Decision Review: There are three grounds upon which a defendant may appeal his conviction: a procedural error, and error of law that invalidates the original decision, or an error of fact which has caused a miscarriage of justice.
The Appeals Chamber only reverses claimed errors of law that do not affect the outcome of the original decision in rare circumstances; if a defendant bases the claim on a perceived lack of reasoned opinion from the lower court, the defendant must identify the specific issues or facts that it alleges the lower court neglected to address.
Because a trial court is in the best position to weigh the factual evidence presented, the Appeals Chamber will only reverse the trial court’s factual finding where it determines that no reasonable court could have construed the facts in the manner so construed by the lower court. The error must be wholly erroneous. Additionally, the defendant must state with precision how the error of fact has occasioned a miscarriage of justice warranting reversal by the court. In order to make this showing, the defendant must prove the factual error was critical to the judgment against the defendant.
Alleged errors of procedure will only be reversed where the defendant can show that the errors lead to a miscarriage of justice, affecting the fairness of the trial. Inconsequential errors that do not prejudice the party will not affect the fairness of the trial, and will therefore not be reversed by the court.
Generally, even if the Appeals Chamber disagrees with the lower court’s decision, the decision will stand unless so unreasonable that the Appeals Chamber determines that the Trial Chamber failed to exercise its discretion judiciously. Likewise, the Appeals Chamber will not revise a sentence given to a defendant unless the Trial Chamber has committed a “discernable error” in sentencing, or has failed to follow the law in sentencing.
Indictment: The Prosecution had challenged the Trial Chamber’s failure to convict Mr. Taylor for crimes committed in several locations, due to the fact that the Trial Chamber found that they were outside the scope of the indictment. The issue was the breadth of the language in the indictment: with regard to certain crimes, the lower court had found that the Prosecution had failed to indicate with enough specificity the locations of these alleged crimes, and therefore declined to include them as part of the indictable offenses.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Chamber’s ruling. Relying on two previous cases, the Chamber found that more non-specific descriptions of location may be adequate in situations where the sheer scale of the alleged crimes committed is very large and extensive. Even in these situations, however, broad pleadings may still be defective. Whether or not this is the case depends on the particulars of the case, and a consideration of the competing rights and interests involved. The Appeals Chamber was satisfied that the Trial Chamber properly weighed the competing interests involved. Nor did the Trial Court err in finding that the pleadings for these crimes were defective, particularly in light of the fact that the Prosecution never alleged that it could not, as a matter of practical reality, have plead its case with more specificity.
Finally, the Appeals Chamber declined to find that, assuming defective pleadings, the defects were cured through other means of notice to the defendant regarding the location of the alleged crimes. The Appeals Chamber noted that the Prosecution has a duty to state with as much specificity as possible the information in the indictment, and cannot rely defective pleadings in the assumption that the defects will later be corrected.
Evaluation of the Evidence: The defense had challenged the legitimacy and legality of the Trial Chamber’s heavy reliance on uncorroborated hearsay evidence in its rulings against Mr. Taylor. The defense alleged that Mr. Taylor could not, as matter of law, be convicted upon evidence gained from hearsay statements and nothing more.
The Appeals Chamber found no merit in this argument. The Appeals Chamber found that, unlike in many national systems, in the legal system of the international criminal tribunals, the common law rules requiring corroborating evidence or testimony do not apply. Here, corroborating evidence to hearsay statements is only preferred, not require. In international criminal law, a charge may be proven on the testimony of one witness. The crux of whether one witness’s testimony is enough is the credibility of that witness, which the Trial Court evaluates. As long as the Trial Chamber otherwise adequately considers all of the evidence in the record, it may rely upon hearsay testimony of only one witness.
In its submission on this point, the defense pointed to the ICTY’s decision in Prlic, in which it stated that rights of the defense would be violated if a conviction is based on evidence presented from a witness that the defense does not have the opportunity to examine. The defense argued that without corroboration, hearsay testimony relaying information from an unexamined declarant violates the principle laid out in Prlic.
The Appeals Chamber rejected Prlic as holding that uncorroborated hearsay evidence can never be the basis for a conviction. The Chamber noted that the decision was heavily informed by cases from the European Court of Human Rights regarding fair trial rights, as are fair trial rights in the international courts generally. ECHR norms generally inform the norms used in the international criminal tribunals Noting this, the Chamber found it significant that despite ECHR statements affirming the right to examine witnesses as part of fair trial rights, the ECHR has also, on at least one occasion, specifically rejected the argument put forth by the defendant that uncorroborated hearsay testimony per se violates an accused’s rights to a fair trial. In this case, the Chamber found that the defense did not show how the uncorroborated evidence prejudiced the defendant or denied him his fair trial rights, other than saying that uncorroborated hearsay evidence by definition violated the defendant’s rights.
Further, the Appeals Chamber found that the record reflected that the Trial Chamber took due caution when assessing the reliability of hearsay statements, as well as the reliability of the sources of the hearsay evidence, because the Chamber explicitly laid out the considerations it used when making the assessment. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber was duly cautious in its approach to hearsay statements, such that its reliance on the hearsay evidence for some of the crimes charged was not in error.
Assessment of Witness Credibility: The defense argued that the Trial Court committed error when it assessed the credibility of 22 witnesses. Specifically, the defense contended that the Trial Court’s assessment of these witnesses, whom it “arbitrarily” considered “significant,” was improper because 20 of the 22 witnesses were Prosecution witnesses. The defense argued that this prejudiced the defendant because these general credibility assessments were “dispositive.”
The Appeals Chamber did not find error with the Trial Court’s assessment of the witnesses. Noting that assessing witness credibility is within the Trial Chamber’s discretion, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber explained in sufficient detail its approach to assessing witness credibility, including the factors it considered when making the assessment. Additionally, the Appeals Chamber found that the assessment was laid out in a particularly detailed fashion with respect to the 22 witnesses, and adequately explained why the Trial Chamber considered these witnesses significant. As such, its emphasis on these witnesses was not arbitrary. As to the discrepancy between the number of prosecution and defense witnesses selected as significant, the Appeals Chamber found that this was the result of there being more prosecution witnesses, and the fact that the defense challenged the credibility of witnesses more than did the prosecution.
In regards to other contentions made by the defense regarding the assessment of credibility of certain witnesses – namely, accomplice witnesses and witnesses who had received compensation – the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber took due, careful, and detailed note of these special circumstances when evaluating witnesses credibility. As such, the Trial Chamber did not err in its findings regarding the credibility of these witnesses.
Inferences: The defense argued that the Trial Chamber erred by relying in its decisions on certain inferences derived from analysis of the evidence, when the evidence was sufficient to support other inferences as well. Stated differently, the defense contended that the Trial Chamber erred because it found the inferences supporting the conviction of the defendant to be the only possible inferences that could arise from the presented evidence. The defense argued that the evidence could just as legitimately support other conclusions and inferences that work against finding the defendant liable.
The Appeals Chamber noted that the standard of law at issue is the one that states that a finding of guilt based upon circumstantial evidence can only lie if the guilt of the defendant is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence. It found no error, however, because it found that the convictions of the defendant were not solely based on circumstantial evidence. Where circumstantial evidence is not dispositive of a defendant’s guilt, the Trial Court need not find that the only inference from that evidence is one of defendant’s guilt.
To access the full decision, click here.
**Note: Due to the length of the decision, it has been review in two parts**
ICC arrest warrant for Kenyan journalist: On 2 October 2013, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Kenyan journalist Walter Barasa. Barasa allegedly bribed, harassed and threatened prosecution witnesses in the ICC case against Kenyan President William Ruto. Barasa claims he was asked to aid witness interviews by ICC staff but never personally participated in “coerci[ve] or unorthodox means.” The journalist intends to defend himself against the charge of interfering with the legal process, which could give rise to 5 years incarceration if found guilty. (ABC News).
UN reports on prison violence in Libya: The UN issued a report on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, condemning the ongoing abuse and torture in Libya’s prisons. The report, which detailed 27 detention center deaths and countless testimonies of physical abuse by the armed brigades, urges an immediate response by the Libyan government to transfer inmates. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay announced the “situation of detainees in Libya is alarming and while there has been some progress, there is an urgent need to renew efforts to prevent torture, investigate allegations of torture and prosecute those responsible.” (UN News Centre).
Costa Rica-Nicaragua border dispute back at ICJ: The ICJ has scheduled four days of hearings in mid-October to discuss the continuing border conflict between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Costa Rica requested the meetings after Nicaragua military excavated two canals in Isla Portillos in violation of a 2011 ICJ precautionary measure. Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla has called for Nicaraguan personnel unlawfully on the wetlands to leave. (Inside Costa Rica).
Ethiopia publicizes discontent with ICC: Ethiopia, a non signatory of the Rome Statute, has again accused the ICC of being politically bias and only targeting leaders of Africa. Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Dina Mufti argued Africa countries should be prosecuting their own leaders, without ICC involvement, in observance of AU recommendations. At this time, 34 African states are parties to the Rome Statute. However, the Kenyan government recently voted to withdraw from membership due to increasing dissatisfaction with the permanent international court. (Sudan Tribune).
Posted by cdelaubenfels in Crimes against Humanity, DRC, Fair trial/Accused's rights, Fatuo Bensouda, Gaddafi, Human Rights Violations, ICC, Investigations, Kenya, News about the Courts, North Korea, Other domestic courts, Post-Election Violence, Torture, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, Victims, War Crimes on August 28, 2013
Syria accused of crimes against humanity: On 27 August, the United Nations condemned the attacks on its weapon inspectors, who were investigating the possible use of chemical weapons. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that the international community cannot “cannot allow impunity in what appears to be a grave crime against humanity,” referencing the use of chemical weapons. The most recent chemical weapons attack occurred outside of Damascus and resulted in the death of over 300 civilians, including children.
UN investigators urge North Korea to allow a visit: On 27 August, the three member UN expert panel assigned to investigate human rights violations in North Korea urged the government to allow them to visit. However, the North Korean government called the probe slanderous and stated that they do not commit human rights abuses. The expert panel completed hearings in South Korea where they heard testimony from former occupants of North Korean prison camps on the human rights violations occurring within, including torture, forced abortions, and public executions. It is estimated that there are 80,000-120,000 prisoners in the labor camps. The UN panel is set to release their report on the abuses by the end of 2013.
Gaddafi seeks assistance from UK over trial concerns: On 27 August, the lawyers representing Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, urged the British government to do all within its powers to assure that Gaddafi is not tried in Libya. The lawyers contend that Gaddafi will only receive a show trial and will be subjected to the death sentence when convicted. Gaddafi is being charged with crimes relating to the events after protests began against his father in 2011, including torture and murder; he is also wanted by the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity. Gaddafi’s trial is set to begin in Tripoli on 19 September.
ICC President criticizes ICC Prosecution over Kenyan case: On 26 August, the ICC Presidency criticized the ICC Prosecution over their changed decision in the trial of Kenyan Deputy-President William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang from preferring a Kenyan or Tanzania venue to preferring The Hague. The Presidency’s criticism of ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s new position is centered around the abrupt change in view without explanation and not providing the defense time to respond to the new submission. Ruto and Song will be on trial before the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity in relation to the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya.
UN to begin inquiry into Sri Lankan war crimes: On 25 August, the UN announced that its top rights official, Navi Pillay, would begin probes into Sri Lankan war crimes, after the Sri Lankan government recently dropped resistance to such inquiries. The probe will focus around the events of the final months of the separatist war in 2009, when some have estimated 40,000 civilians died. Until recently, the war zones of Northern Sri Lanka had been off limits to journalists, aid workers, and UN staff.
Former Congolese general arrested in France for crimes against humanity: On 23 August, the French government arrested former Congolese General Norbert Dabira for war crimes committed in the DRC. The arrest is in relation to the disappearance of approximately 350 refugees in 1999. Although the Congolese government claims that the refugees were massacred, human rights groups and relatives of the refugees claim the refugees were tortured and then executed. Under French law, Dabira will first be investigated by a panel of judges who will decide if there is enough evidence to take the case to trial.
46 former Auschwitz guards facing arrest: On 27 August, it was announced that 46 former Auschwitz prison guards were facing arrest in Germany. German courts are set to issue arrest warrants soon, they will be charged with aiding and abetting murder.
New CAR President led recent coup d’etat: On 19 August 2013 it was announced that the former rebel leader Michel Djotodia was sworn in as president of the CAR. President Djotodia is tasked with restoring security and stability to the impoverished nation. Fresh polls are set to take place within 18 months.
Alleged Srebrenica perpetrator extradited to Bosnia; will face war crimes trial: On 16 August 2013, a former Bosnian Serb solder accused of taking part in the Srebrenica massacre has been extradited to Bosnia from Israel. The prosecutor’s office in Bosnia claims that Aleksandar Cvetkovic took part in the execution of hundreds of Muslim men and boys on a farm near Srebrenica. During the extradition process on 15 August 2013 the Bosnian war crimes court rejected all of his appeals.
UN Hearings to air torture, murder at N. Korea camps: North Korean defectors and prison camp survivors will start testifying at U.N. hearings in Seoul and Tokyo to document alleged abuses. Activists and alleged victims hope that the evidence brought fourth during the hearings will serve as the first step in building a criminal case against N. Korean officials.
UN Mission in DRC cites release of child recruits: On 16 August 2013 it was reported that the UN peacekeeping mission in DRC has led to the release of 82 children from the Mayi Mayi Bakata Katanga armed group. About half the children have been reunited with their families while the remaining children are being looked after by interim care pending reunification. Since the mission started at the beginning of the year 163 children have been separated from Mayi Mayi Bakata Katanga by MONUSCO and child protection services.
UN Secretary General, ICC Prosecutor voice concern over CAR: On 9 August 2013 UN chief Ban Ki-moon announced that the UN Security Council may consider sanctions or set up a panel of experts to review the current situation in the CAR. An increase of rebel infighting has led to widespread abuses and government instability. (For more information on this topic please click, here.)
Alleged Nazi war criminal dies before trial: On 12 August 2013 it was reported that the 98-year-old Hungarian Nazi war crimes suspect, Laszlo Csatary, has died while awaiting trial. Csatary faced charges in Hungary and Slovakia for his alleged involvement in the deportation of 15,700 Jews to death camps.
HRW calls recent Iraq attacks crimes against humanity: On 11 August 2013 Human Rights Watch announced that the militants who carried out a series of bomb attacks in Iraq on 29 July 2013 committed crimes against humanity. Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch stated that Al-Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the attacks and is guilty of crimes against humanity.
Convicted Jamaat leader appeals ICT sentence: On 11 August 2013 the former Al-Badr commander moved the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court challenging the verdict which sentenced him to death. The International Crimes Tribunal-2 sentenced Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed to death after finding him guilty of five of the seven charges levelled against him including the murder of intellectuals, genocide, abduction, torture, and murder.
Posted by cdelaubenfels in Crimes against Humanity, Fair trial/Accused's rights, Fatuo Bensouda, Gaddafi, Gender crimes, Genocide, Human Rights Violations, ICC, ICTR, ICTR Residual Mechanism, Investigations, jurisdiction, Kenya, News about the Courts, Other domestic courts, Post-Election Violence, Rome Statute, Syria, Torture, UN Human Rights Council, Victims, War Crimes, Witnesses on July 31, 2013
ICC Prosecutor considering “no-case-to-answer” motion in Kenyatta trial: On 27 July 2013, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that the prosecution is considering entering a “no-case-to-answer” motion in Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s trial, where he is facing five counts of crimes against humanity. The motion, which would make each charge against Kenyatta be tried individually and give each party a chance to respond to the charge, has the potential to lead to an early dismissal of the case. The victims’ lawyers oppose the motion, stating that it will only delay justice and that the motion is not considered by the Rome Statute. On a similar note, Kenyan Deputy-President William Ruto has claimed that local and international NGOs have tampered with evidence including witness coaching. (For further information on this topic, please click here.)
Parties in Kenyatta case to submit preferences for trial venue: On 30 July 2013, ICC judges instructed the various parties to Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s case to submit their venue preferences for the opening of the trial, between Kenya or Tanzania. Kenyan Deputy-President William Ruto submitted a similar request for venue change, but ICC judges rejected the motion and his trial will be in The Hague. In Ruto’s case, the judges cited costs, victims and witnesses interests, and local impact on Kenya as deciding factors. The victims’ lawyer stated that most victims prefer the trial take place in The Hague. Parties have until 13 August to submit their views.
Head of U.N. Syrian probe urges member-states to act: On 30 July 2013, the head of a U.N. human rights probe into Syria, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, implored member-states to act decisively to bring the war in Syria to an end. Pinheiro stated that a lack of action has led to a cultural of impunity. The probe has released ten reports on the human rights violations occurring in Syria including indiscriminate shelling, sexual violence, torture, and massacres. Over 100,000 Syrians have already died in the conflict.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi potentially faces execution in Libya trial: On 29 July 2013, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, may face execution if convicted in Libya, where he is charged with harming state security and insulting the national flag. The ICC has issued an extradition request, but Libya states that the ICC does not have jurisdiction because Libya is not unable or unwilling to prosecute. Gaddafi’s lawyer has stated that his client will not be able to receive a fair trial in Libya.
UK reports that nearly 100 war crimes suspects were identified last year: On 30 July 2013, the Home Office, the UK’s immigration agency, reported that nearly 100 war crimes suspects had been identified in the UK in the last year. Suspects originated from numerous states including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Rwanda, Serbia and Sri Lanka. Most suspects have been living in the UK for years. The Home Office stated that any suspects should be put on trial in their home country to face justice.
ICTR accused sent to Rwanda for trial: On 24 July 2013, ICTR accused, Bernard Munyagishari was transferred from the ICTR to Rwanda. Munyagishari, the former Secretary General for the ruling Rwanda party during the genocide, was charged by the ICTR with genocide and other crimes. Munyagishari is the second accused to be transferred to Rwanda for domestic trial. Until 2011, accused persons were not transferred to Rwanda because the UN backed court said Rwanda did not fulfill the conditions for a fair trial. However, transferring accused from the ICTR to national courts is now one of the strategies in closing the ICTR.
ICC Indictee Kushayb injured in Darfur violence: On 7 July 2013, it was reported that Ali Kushayb survived an assassination attempt in the city of Nyala in the Darfur region. Kushayb is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed during the Darfur conflict. This current increase in violence adds to what the United Nations says is a worsening security situation in Sudan’s western region. (For more information on this topic, please click here.)
Karadzic 98 bis appeal judgment expected Thursday: On 11 June 2012, Karadžić moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules on all Counts in the Indictment. Rule 98 bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides that at the close of the Prosecutor’s case, the Trial Chamber shall enter a judgment of acquittal on any count if there is no evidence capable of supporting a conviction. Current charges include genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995.
Former Habre administration leaders arrested: On 5 July 2013, it was announced that two former officials under former dictator Hissene Habre have been arrested and charged with torture. Habre is currently facing trial at a special court in Senegal.
Myanmar releases child soldiers: On 8 July 2013, it was reported that the Myanmar Armed Forces has released 42 children from within the ranks of it’s the army. By the terms of an action plan signed with the UN last year, the Myanmar Government has agreed to locate all children recruited by the Tatmadaw with a view to ensuring their unconditional release, and committed to discharging and facilitating their quick reintegration back into their families and their communities. The UN foresees the accelerated release of those children still within army ranks.
5 July 2013 – NEWS ABOUT THE COURTS
UN HR team scheduled to visit North Korea: On 5July 2013, it was announced that a team of UN human rights investigators will be holding a set of meetings with North Korean exiles to discuss alleged human rights abuses. The DPRK is concerned about the impartiality of the meetings and will likely ignore any UN recommendations. The major concerns surrounding the DPRK involve kidnappings of foreign nationals, torture and a alleged gulag system said to be holding over 200,000 prisoners.
US looks to expedite 9/11 war crimes trials: The US military judge presiding over the September 11 war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay is being urged to move the case along. Prosecutors have asked Army Col. James Pohl to set a Sept. 22, 2014, trial date, establish deadlines for pretrial motions and hold month long hearings to resolve preliminary matters that must be addressed before the death penalty case against five Guantanamo prisoners can be heard by a jury of military officers at the U.S. base in Cuba.
Charges hearing for Yusuf set for mid-July: On 4 July 2013, the ICT set a hearing for 14 July 2013, for the hearing for the charge of framing against war crimes suspects and alleged founder of the Razakar force AKM Yusuf. The prosecution submitted formal charges against Yusuf, a senior nayeb-e-ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, on May 8. The prosecution brought 15 charges against the 84-year-old including genocide, murder, looting and arson.
Commissioner Pillay seeks HR assurances for Egyptians: On 5 July 2013, it was reported that Commissioner Pillay urged all parties in Egypt to ensure calm and the protection of human rights during this “delicate” period, stressing the need for dialogue to peacefully re-establish the rule of law and civilian authority. She also reaffirmed OHCHR’s readiness to assist the Egyptian people in the transitional process and in particular in efforts by future administrations to promote a society based on principles of democracy and social justice, guided by internationally recognized human rights and freedoms.