Charles Taylor 'duped' by Nigeria | |||
Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has said he was duped by Nigeria into being arrested there in 2006. Speaking at his war crimes trial in The Hague, he said Nigeria's then-leader had reneged on a promise to let him leave the country freely. He also claimed a plot involving the UK and the US led to his indictment. Mr Taylor is accused of backing rebels, who committed widespread atrocities throughout the 1990s in Liberia's neighbour Sierra Leone. He was living in exile in Nigeria in 2006 when US pressure to put him on trial for alleged war crimes increased. Mr Taylor now says the president of Nigeria at the time, Olusegun Obasanjo - who is currently a United Nations peace envoy - told him lies that caused him to be arrested. Mysterious affair The former Liberian leader told the Special Court for Sierra Leone on Tuesday that Mr Obasanjo had earlier assured him he could leave the country freely. "He lied to the world when he said I was escaping, and he knew nothing about it," he said. "Why he lied? I don't know, but as a brother and a friend, I think he ought to speak and tell the truth about it."
Mr Taylor's arrest was a dramatic and mysterious affair. After Mr Obasanjo said Liberia's new government was free to take Mr Taylor into custody, the former Liberian leader suddenly disappeared while Mr Obasanjo was on his way to Washington to meet his US counterpart, George W Bush. Then, equally suddenly, the Nigerians announced that they had arrested Mr Taylor for trying to escape. He was captured, allegedly with huge sacks of cash, on the border with Cameroon - some 1,000km (600 miles) from the southern town of Calabar, where he had been living in exile. Mr Taylor had been given asylum in Nigeria as part of a deal to end Liberia's civil war, though human rights groups accused him of breaking the terms of the deal by continuing to interfere in Liberian politics. On Tuesday, he said he hoped he would live to look Mr Obasanjo in the face one day and ask him to tell the truth about what happened. The BBC's Geraldine Coughlan says Mr Taylor appeared defiant on what was the final day of his testimony in The Hague. He claimed he was a victim of an intelligence plot involving the British and US governments that supplied weapons to the region in an attempt to topple him - as part of a plan by Washington to gain control of West African oil reserves. The US position was that "we cannot have anyone in Liberia that we don't think is going to dance to our tune", he said. He also said he was a peace broker and repeated denials that he had supplied arms to Sierra Leone rebels in exchange for blood diamonds. The prosecution, which will now cross-examine Mr Taylor, says it will challenge the accuracy, truthfulness and completeness of his testimony. Source: BBC news | |||
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Charles Taylor 'duped' by Nigeria
Karadzic wins small victory
Karadzic wins small victory
While the judges opted to impose a lawyer on Karadzic, who has boycotted his trial since it started on October 26, they did not strip him of the right to conduct his own defense and effectively gave him more time to prepare – exactly what he was after.
“This is an indirect way of giving Karadzic a bit more time to prepare his case,” while trying to minimize further interruptions, Willem van Genugten, international law professor at the Netherlands’ Tilburg University, told AFP.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Thursday ordered the imposition of a defense lawyer on Karadzic and adjourned his genocide trial to March 1. Karadzic, 64, has refused to attend his trial since it opened in The Hague nearly two weeks ago, insisting on more time to prepare his defense, which he is conducting himself with the backing of about 20 legal advisers, many of them volunteers.
He had asked the court in September for an extra 10 months to study 1.3 million pages of prosecution evidence and hundreds of witness statements. The judges warned that Karadzic would lose his right to self-representation should he continue his boycott when the trial resumes, in which case the court-assigned lawyer would take over.
“After several warnings (ignored by Karadzic), the tribunal had to send out a serious message if it didn’t want to lose credibility,” said Van Genugten.
In Thursday’s decision, the judges said Karadzic had “substantially and persistently obstructed” the proceedings and “effectively brought the trial to a halt.” There have only been two days of trial hearings to date, both used for the opening statement of the prosecutor, who urged the court not to allow Karadzic’s antics to dictate the trial schedule.
“The judges were looking for a compromise to end the impasse,” said Harmen van der Wilt, international law professor at the University of Amsterdam. “They had to show that they retain control, that they won’t be held hostage, all the while trying to cooperate with the accused,” he said. According to Xavier Tracol, a former ICTY prosecutor, Karadzic “has won a battle but not the war.” “His objective is to hold the tribunal hostage. Winning time is one way of achieving that.”
Source: Kathimerini.gr
Βέλγιο: Αναβολή της δίκης του ζητά ο τραπεζίτης που κατηγορείται ότι χρηματοδότησε τη γενοκτονία στη Ρουάντα
| Βέλγιο: Αναβολή της δίκης του ζητά ο τραπεζίτης που κατηγορείται ότι χρηματοδότησε τη γενοκτονία στη Ρουάντα |
| 11/11/2009 12:07:30 μμ |
Ο Νκεζαμπέρα βαρύνεται με τις κατηγορίες των εγκλημάτων πολέμου, που περιλαμβάνουν φόνο, απόπειρα φόνου και βιασμό. «Θέλουμε μία επίσημη απόφαση, θετική ή αρνητική, για το αν είναι ένοχος για όλες αυτές τις πράξεις», δήλωσε ένας εκ των συγγενών των θυμάτων. Ο κατηγορούμενος έχει παραδεχθεί ότι πρόσφερε όπλα και χρήματα στους αντάρτες Χούτου, οι οποίοι εμπλέκονταν στη γενοκτονία, καθώς και ότι χρηματοδοτούσε τον εξτρεμιστικό ραδιοσταθμό «Radio Mille Collines». Ωστόσο, αρνείται τις κατηγορίες του βιασμού, που για πρώτη φορά στη δικαστική ιστορία του Βελγίου κρίνονται ως εγκλήματα του διεθνούς ανθρωπιστικού δικαίου. Source:LawNewsCenter.gr |
Sunday 8 November 2009
Immigrant arrested over Rwandan genocide
Immigrant arrested over Rwandan genocide
Posted
Police in Canada have arrested an immigrant in connection with the genocide in Rwanda in the early 1990s.
The man is the second Rwandan to be charged under Canada's new Crimes Against Humanity Act.
Jacques Mungwarere was arrested at his home in Windsor, Ontario, and has been officially charged with war crimes.
His arrest caps a six-year police investigation that involved questioning witnesses beyond Canada's borders.
But the case remains shrouded in secrecy with police saying very little.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police war crimes unit would only say the 37-year-old Mungwarere was wanted in connection with genocide in an area of Rwanda that borders the Congo.
It was the scene in 1994 of a horrific massacre where at least 2,000 Tutsis died when bulldozers knocked down the church where they had sought refuge.
Canadian police say they are determined to prosecute these cases to the full extent of the law.
Tuesday 3 November 2009
Βοσνία: Καταδίκη Σερβοβόσνιου στρατιωτικού για εγκλήματα πολέμου
| Βοσνία: Καταδίκη Σερβοβόσνιου στρατιωτικού για εγκλήματα πολέμου |
| 2/11/2009 1:34:27 μμ |
Sierra Leonean judge elected head of UN-backed war crimes tribunal
Sierra Leonean judge elected head of UN-backed war crimes tribunal
The Special Court for Sierra Leone
Justice Emmanuel Ayoola of Nigeria was elected as Vice-President, the press release added.
Justice Kamanda succeeds Justice Renate Winter of Austria, who had served as President since May last year.
The new President has had an extensive legal career, having worked as a barrister, prosecutor and judge during the past 34 years. He has also served as a government minister in Sierra Leone.
The SCSL also announced today that Claire Carlton-Hanciles, a Sierra Leonean lawyer, has been named as the court’s Principal Defender.
«Καταπέλτης» ο εισαγγελέας του ΔΠΔ για τον Κάρατζιτς, που αναμένεται να παρουσιαστεί σήμερα στη δίκη του
| «Καταπέλτης» ο εισαγγελέας του ΔΠΔ για τον Κάρατζιτς, που αναμένεται να παρουσιαστεί σήμερα στη δίκη του |
| 3/11/2009 9:38:26 πμ |
Υπενθυμίζεται ότι οι κατηγορίες που τον βαραίνουν σχετίζονται με τους βομβαρδισμούς και τα πυρά ελεύθερων σκοπευτών στο Σεράγεβο καθ’ όλη τη διάρκεια του πολέμου, που κόστισαν τη ζωή περισσοτέρων από 10.000 πολιτών. Ο ίδιος αρνείται όλα αυτά και ζητά εννέα μήνες επιπλέον, για να προετοιμάσει την υπεράσπισή του. |
Sunday 1 November 2009
Sierra Leone: eight men found guilty of war crimes transferred to Rwanda
Sierra Leone: eight men found guilty of war crimes transferred to Rwanda
Former leader of the RUF in Sierra Leone Issa Hassan Sesay (centre)
Currently, no prison in Sierra Leone meets the required international standards, so amid tight security, they were flown yesterday from the detention facilities at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) compound in the country's capital, Freetown, to Rwanda's capital, Kigali.
Among those transferred were three men who led a rebel movement called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) who were convicted in February on charges relating to, among others, terrorism, murder, rape, sexual slavery and use of child soldiers, and, for the first time in history, forced marriage and attacks against peacekeepers.
Last week, the SCSL upheld the sentences of former RUF Interim Leader Issa Hassan Sesay to 52 years in prison, RUF commander Morris Kallon to 40 years and former RUF Chief of Security Augustine Gbao to 25 years.
Others flown to Rwanda to serve their sentences were three former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), Alex Tamba Brima, Ibrahim Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, as well as two former leaders of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa.
The eight prisoners will be incarcerated at Rwanda's Mpanga Prison under an agreement between the Court and the Rwandan Government. The part of the facility where they will be held was originally built to house those convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
Credit will be given for time served while in detention at the Special Court, which was set up jointly by the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone and is mandated to bring those bearing the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in the West African nation after 30 November 1996.
The Freetown-based Court last week handed down its final ruling in Sierra Leone last week, wrapping up its trial proceedings.
The remaining trial, involving former Liberian president Charles Taylor, is continuing at The Hague, where it was moved for security reasons.
Friday 30 October 2009
African Union: Hybrid Court No Replacement for ICC; National Reforms Needed
African Union: Hybrid Court No Replacement for ICC; National Reforms Needed
(New York) October 29, 2009 -- The African Union (AU) should support the High-Level Panel on Darfur's call for prosecutions to provide justice for victims in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch said that the panel's recommendation to create a "hybrid court" - along with establishing a truth and reconciliation commission and strengthening the domestic criminal justice system - could usefully supplement justice efforts in Darfur, but not replace International Criminal Court (ICC) cases.
The panel's report is being presented to a meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council in Abuja on October 29.
"African Union states should endorse the Mbeki Panel's call for prosecutions - the victims of the attacks in Darfur deserve justice," said Richard Dicker, International Justice Program director at Human Rights Watch. "A hybrid court and national law reforms could potentially help, but not substitute the ICC's cases."
The High-Level Panel on Darfur, headed by Thabo Mbeki, the former South African president, was established by the AU in March 2009 to explore ways to secure peace, justice, and reconciliation in Darfur. The panel carried out its work - including holding a series of hearings in Sudan - for approximately six months and prepared a comprehensive 125-page report.
The panel concluded that the "people of Darfur have suffered extreme violence and gross violations of human rights." One of the panel's main recommendations is to establish a new hybrid court consisting of Sudanese judges and judges appointed by the AU to prosecute the most serious crimes committed in Darfur.
The Mbeki Panel did not take a position on whether the hybrid court would seek to try cases currently before the ICC, which has been investigating and prosecuting crimes in Darfur since 2005, when the United Nations Security Council referred the situation to the ICC.
The ICC currently has cases against four individuals suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. One of these is President Omar al-Bashir, for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant on March 4, 2009.
"Sudan has been obstructing justice for crimes committed in Darfur for years," Dicker said. "The proposed hybrid court and national law reforms should not delay the ICC cases for one minute. If and when a hybrid court gets up and running, there will be plenty of additional cases to fill its docket."
The establishment of a new hybrid court - which Human Rights Watch said should conform to international standards for fair trials - is likely to face major obstacles, Human Rights Watch said. The Sudanese leadership has previously undercut efforts by domestic courts to prosecute Darfur atrocities. A hybrid court that has Sudanese participation could be plagued by a similar lack of political will to hold perpetrators to account. In addition, new courts can take a long time to create and can be very expensive.
The Mbeki Panel also recommends strengthening the national criminal justice system and removing immunities for state actors who violate human rights. These recommendations are consistent with legal and institutional reforms required under the terms of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed by the ruling National Congress Party and the southern Sudan People's Liberation Movement, which ended more than 20 years of civil war.
A genuine law reform process requires the Sudanese legislature to repeal or amend existing laws to bring them into conformity with applicable international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said. These should include, as a matter of urgency, reform of the National Security Forces Act, which currently grants sweeping powers of arrest and detention to national security authorities who continue to commit human rights violations in Darfur and across Sudan.
"The Mbeki Panel's call for real legal reform in Sudan as one key element in improving accountability for human rights violations is welcome," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Genuine reforms could also help create the conditions necessary for free and fair national elections in April 2010."
The Mbeki Panel further recommends the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, which could make an important contribution to broader accountability for crimes in Darfur. Such a process can contribute to societal healing by thorough documentation of victims' experiences and crimes committed.
The AU and the ICC
In July, the AU called for its member states not to cooperate with the arrest and surrender of al-Bashir to the ICC because the Security Council had not responded to an AU call to defer the case. Article 16 of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, permits the Security Council to grant deferrals for renewable one-year periods to maintain peace and security. Under the Rome Statute, efforts to strengthen national prosecutions for crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the court are not a basis for an article 16 deferral.
As South Africa and Botswana have pointed out, the July AU decision goes against the obligations of African states that are parties to the Rome Statute. All states parties are obliged to cooperate with the ICC irrespective of such summit decisions. The AU decision was also inconsistent with article 4 of its own Constitutive Act, which rejects impunity.
With the arrest warrant for President al-Bashir, some government officials in Africa have suggested that the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders. However, all ICC situations to date were either voluntarily referred by African governments or, in the situation of Darfur, by the UN Security Council.
At the same time, the application of international justice has been uneven, with officials from powerful states less vulnerable to prosecution. The solution is to work to extend - not curtail- accountability, including by promoting wider ratification of the Rome Statute. Otherwise, victims will be denied redress and a culture of accountability frustrated, contrary to the AU's Constitutive Act, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch urges states to work for prosecutions of serious crimes that violate international law wherever they occur and to extend the reach of international courts. Human Rights Watch, other international organizations, and civil society across Africa have urged African states to cooperate with the ICC in the arrest and surrender of al-Bashir.
"African civil society has repeatedly called for African states to cooperate with the ICC in the arrest of President al-Bashir," said Gagnon. "African states should heed this call."
Background on National Efforts to Prosecute Serious Crimes in Darfur
On June 7, 2005, the day after the ICC prosecutor announced he was opening investigations into the events in Darfur, the Sudanese authorities established the Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur (SCCED). However, by June 2006 authorities had brought only 13 cases before these courts, all involving low-ranking individuals accused of minor offenses such as theft. In the sole case relating to a large-scale attack on civilians, the court merely convicted the accused of theft that occurred after the attack.
In August 2008, Sudan's justice minister, Abdelbasit Sabdarat, appointed a special prosecutor and legal advisers in each of Darfur's three states to investigate crimes from 2003 onward. In October 2008, Sudanese justice officials announced that the special prosecutor had completed an investigation into allegations against Ali Kosheib, a militia commander who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In February 2009, the special prosecutor for Darfur stated that three men, including Kosheib, had been charged in a case related to events in Deleig, Mukjar, Bandas, and Garsila. However, there has since been no indication of any progress in this or any other case, and the special prosecutor has complained publicly that he has had difficulty accessing and interviewing victims.
The ICC's Darfur Cases
To date, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for three suspects for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur: President al-Bashir; Ahmad Harun, the former Minister of State of the Interior and the former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs; and Ali Kushayb, an alleged commander of the Janjaweed militia. The ICC also has issued a summons to appear for a Sudanese rebel leader, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, for alleged war crimes committed as part of an attack on an African Union peacekeeping base, Haskanita. Applications for arrest warrants or summons to appear for two other rebel commanders - whose names have not been disclosed - who are believed to have also participated in the Haskanita attack are under review.
Human Rights Watch Press release
(New York) October 29, 2009 -- The African Union (AU) should support the High-Level Panel on Darfur's call for prosecutions to provide justice for victims in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch said that the panel's recommendation to create a "hybrid court" - along with establishing a truth and reconciliation commission and strengthening the domestic criminal justice system - could usefully supplement justice efforts in Darfur, but not replace International Criminal Court (ICC) cases.
The panel's report is being presented to a meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council in Abuja on October 29.
"African Union states should endorse the Mbeki Panel's call for prosecutions - the victims of the attacks in Darfur deserve justice," said Richard Dicker, International Justice Program director at Human Rights Watch. "A hybrid court and national law reforms could potentially help, but not substitute the ICC's cases."
The High-Level Panel on Darfur, headed by Thabo Mbeki, the former South African president, was established by the AU in March 2009 to explore ways to secure peace, justice, and reconciliation in Darfur. The panel carried out its work - including holding a series of hearings in Sudan - for approximately six months and prepared a comprehensive 125-page report.
The panel concluded that the "people of Darfur have suffered extreme violence and gross violations of human rights." One of the panel's main recommendations is to establish a new hybrid court consisting of Sudanese judges and judges appointed by the AU to prosecute the most serious crimes committed in Darfur.
The Mbeki Panel did not take a position on whether the hybrid court would seek to try cases currently before the ICC, which has been investigating and prosecuting crimes in Darfur since 2005, when the United Nations Security Council referred the situation to the ICC.
The ICC currently has cases against four individuals suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. One of these is President Omar al-Bashir, for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant on March 4, 2009.
"Sudan has been obstructing justice for crimes committed in Darfur for years," Dicker said. "The proposed hybrid court and national law reforms should not delay the ICC cases for one minute. If and when a hybrid court gets up and running, there will be plenty of additional cases to fill its docket."
The establishment of a new hybrid court - which Human Rights Watch said should conform to international standards for fair trials - is likely to face major obstacles, Human Rights Watch said. The Sudanese leadership has previously undercut efforts by domestic courts to prosecute Darfur atrocities. A hybrid court that has Sudanese participation could be plagued by a similar lack of political will to hold perpetrators to account. In addition, new courts can take a long time to create and can be very expensive.
The Mbeki Panel also recommends strengthening the national criminal justice system and removing immunities for state actors who violate human rights. These recommendations are consistent with legal and institutional reforms required under the terms of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed by the ruling National Congress Party and the southern Sudan People's Liberation Movement, which ended more than 20 years of civil war.
A genuine law reform process requires the Sudanese legislature to repeal or amend existing laws to bring them into conformity with applicable international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said. These should include, as a matter of urgency, reform of the National Security Forces Act, which currently grants sweeping powers of arrest and detention to national security authorities who continue to commit human rights violations in Darfur and across Sudan.
"The Mbeki Panel's call for real legal reform in Sudan as one key element in improving accountability for human rights violations is welcome," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Genuine reforms could also help create the conditions necessary for free and fair national elections in April 2010."
The Mbeki Panel further recommends the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, which could make an important contribution to broader accountability for crimes in Darfur. Such a process can contribute to societal healing by thorough documentation of victims' experiences and crimes committed.
The AU and the ICC
In July, the AU called for its member states not to cooperate with the arrest and surrender of al-Bashir to the ICC because the Security Council had not responded to an AU call to defer the case. Article 16 of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, permits the Security Council to grant deferrals for renewable one-year periods to maintain peace and security. Under the Rome Statute, efforts to strengthen national prosecutions for crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the court are not a basis for an article 16 deferral.
As South Africa and Botswana have pointed out, the July AU decision goes against the obligations of African states that are parties to the Rome Statute. All states parties are obliged to cooperate with the ICC irrespective of such summit decisions. The AU decision was also inconsistent with article 4 of its own Constitutive Act, which rejects impunity.
With the arrest warrant for President al-Bashir, some government officials in Africa have suggested that the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders. However, all ICC situations to date were either voluntarily referred by African governments or, in the situation of Darfur, by the UN Security Council.
At the same time, the application of international justice has been uneven, with officials from powerful states less vulnerable to prosecution. The solution is to work to extend - not curtail- accountability, including by promoting wider ratification of the Rome Statute. Otherwise, victims will be denied redress and a culture of accountability frustrated, contrary to the AU's Constitutive Act, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch urges states to work for prosecutions of serious crimes that violate international law wherever they occur and to extend the reach of international courts. Human Rights Watch, other international organizations, and civil society across Africa have urged African states to cooperate with the ICC in the arrest and surrender of al-Bashir.
"African civil society has repeatedly called for African states to cooperate with the ICC in the arrest of President al-Bashir," said Gagnon. "African states should heed this call."
Background on National Efforts to Prosecute Serious Crimes in Darfur
On June 7, 2005, the day after the ICC prosecutor announced he was opening investigations into the events in Darfur, the Sudanese authorities established the Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur (SCCED). However, by June 2006 authorities had brought only 13 cases before these courts, all involving low-ranking individuals accused of minor offenses such as theft. In the sole case relating to a large-scale attack on civilians, the court merely convicted the accused of theft that occurred after the attack.
In August 2008, Sudan's justice minister, Abdelbasit Sabdarat, appointed a special prosecutor and legal advisers in each of Darfur's three states to investigate crimes from 2003 onward. In October 2008, Sudanese justice officials announced that the special prosecutor had completed an investigation into allegations against Ali Kosheib, a militia commander who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In February 2009, the special prosecutor for Darfur stated that three men, including Kosheib, had been charged in a case related to events in Deleig, Mukjar, Bandas, and Garsila. However, there has since been no indication of any progress in this or any other case, and the special prosecutor has complained publicly that he has had difficulty accessing and interviewing victims.
The ICC's Darfur Cases
To date, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for three suspects for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur: President al-Bashir; Ahmad Harun, the former Minister of State of the Interior and the former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs; and Ali Kushayb, an alleged commander of the Janjaweed militia. The ICC also has issued a summons to appear for a Sudanese rebel leader, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, for alleged war crimes committed as part of an attack on an African Union peacekeeping base, Haskanita. Applications for arrest warrants or summons to appear for two other rebel commanders - whose names have not been disclosed - who are believed to have also participated in the Haskanita attack are under review.
Human Rights Watch Press release
Canada jails Rwandan war criminal
Canada jails Rwandan war criminal | |
A Rwandan man convicted of war crimes has been jailed for life by a Canadian court, without the prospect of parole for 25 years. Desire Munyaneza, 42, was found guilty in May in the first court case brought under Canada's 2000 War Crimes Act. He was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in 1994. The sentencing judge said the law considered the crimes committed by the accused to be the "worst in existence." Judge Andre Denis described the sentence, the harshest possible, as "severe". The trial took place over two years, and heard emotional testimony from 66 witnesses about the atrocities. 'Boost for survivors' Munyaneza was accused of leading a militia whose members raped and killed dozens of Tutsis, and of orchestrating a massacre of 300-400 Tutsis in a church. His lawyer has said he will appeal against the conviction. Munyaneza arrived in Canada in the 1990s and tried to claim asylum - but the authorities rejected his claims. He was arrested in 2005 in a Toronto suburb after allegations emerged that he had been a militia leader during Rwanda's civil conflict. Rwandan Jean-Paul Nyilinkwaya said: "The fact that he was found guilty is a very big boost for the survivors. Everybody there is desperate for justice." Mr Nyilinkwaya, who now lives in Canada, was instrumental in Munyaneza's capture, according to Associated Press news agency. | |
Arrests over 1995 massacre
Arrests over 1995 massacre
Dusko Jevic, 52, and Zoran Ilic, 36, were arrested on Wednesday by the State Protection and Investigation Agency in Srebrenica and Mendeljev Djuric, 49, in the northeastern town of Bijeljina, a spokesman for the state prosecutor’s office said.
“The three were members of the Bosnian Serb Interior Ministry and are detained on orders of the state prosecutor on suspicion of genocide over the Srebrenica massacre,” Boris Grubesic told Reuters.
The United Nations war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague has sentenced seven Bosnian Serbs for the Srebrenica massacre. Nine more are on trial. Mladic is still on the run, 14 years after he was indicted.
The Bosnian war crimes court, set up in 2005 to relieve the burden on the Hague-based tribunal, has put dozens of Bosnian Serbs on trial over Srebrenica. Twelve have been jailed, seven acquitted and seven are still being tried.
Ex-soldier sentenced
Separately yesterday, the court sentenced former soldier Zoran Maric, a 45-year-old Serb, to 15 years in jail for crimes against civilians for killing and wounding dozens of Bosnian Muslims early in the country’s 1992-95 war.Maric reached a plea deal with the court, admitting participating in the killing in a western Bosnian village that occurred on September 10, 1992, the court said in a statement.
He was found guilty of taking part as co-perpetrator in the imprisonment and forcible removal from their homes of civilian Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in the village of Osoje.
“Imprisoned civilians were taken to a place called Tisovac where they were ordered to line up next to the edge of an abyss after which members of the Serb Republic army opened fire and killed 23 persons,” said the court, adding that four civilians were wounded and one was unharmed.
The trial of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic opened in The Hague this week, with prosecutors accusing him of leading a genocidal campaign against Bosnian Muslims during the war. Karadzic, who denies all charges, boycotted the hearing.
Early release for the ‘Iron Lady’ of Bosnian Serbs
| |
 |
REUTERSFormer Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic (left) is greeted by supporters in Belgrade on Tuesday, following her early release from prison in Sweden.Karadzic no-show at UN trial
Karadzic no-show at UN trial
A Bosnian Muslim woman from the Srebrenica area, Dzemila Mustajbasic, 76, reacts as she listens to a news report on the radio on the war crimes trial of Radovan Karadzic, in a refugee center near Zivinice, 72 kilometers north of Sarajevo, on Tuesday.By Reed Stevenson - ReutersTHE HAGUE – Radovan Karadzic led a genocide campaign to make Bosnian Muslims “disappear from the face of the earth” and carve out a monoethnic state for Bosnian Serbs, war crimes prosecutors told a UN tribunal on Tuesday.
In opening statements, prosecutors painted a picture of the former Bosnian Serb leader as a supreme commander single-mindedly pursing a campaign of “ethnic cleansing” during the 1992-95 Bosnian war that killed an estimated 100,000 people.
They spoke to empty chairs on the defendant’s side of the court as Karadzic, who denies all charges, boycotted the trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for a second day.
“The Supreme Commander explained in October 1991 what was coming for Sarajevo: ‘Sarajevo will be a black cauldron where Muslims will die. They will disappear, that people will disappear from the face of the earth,’” senior prosecutor Alan Tieger cited Karadzic as saying in an intercepted call.
He was referring to the 43-month siege of Sarajevo that began in 1992 and killed an estimated 10,000 people as the former Yugoslavia was torn apart in the 1990s by Serbs, Croats and Muslims fighting for land.
“The supreme commander had directed his forces in a campaign to carve out a monoethnic state within his multiethnic country,” Tieger said.
“This case, your honors, is about that supreme commander. A man who harnessed the forces of nationalism, hatred and fear to implement his vision of an ethnically separated Bosnia – Radovan Karadzic.”
Shocking evidence
In addition to maps, slides and intercepted phone calls, Tieger showed several videos of Serbian snipers shooting Sarejevo citizens, as well as others of Karadzic on the hills overlooking the city, observing and directing the siege.He promised to provide witnesses and testimony during the trial showing Karadzic’s active involvement in Sarejevo and other campaigns to wipe out minorities.
Karadzic, 64, has denied all 11 war crimes charges against him.
Judge O-Gon Kwon warned Karadzic to appear in court or risk having counsel assigned to him and being tried in absentia.
“Should the accused persist in his refusal to attend the trial... the trial will proceed in his absence, and counsel will be assigned,” the South Korean judge said.
Following the end of opening remarks next Monday, a hearing will be held on Tuesday to decide how to proceed if Karadzic continues his boycott. Options include trial in absentia, assigning counsel, seeking outside advice and adjourning to allow assigned legal counsel time to prepare. “If we get enough time to prepare a proper defense, he will will appear in court, definitely,” said Marko Sladojevic, one of Karadzic’s legal advisers, adding that Karadzic was following proceedings closely, working until 5 a.m. on the trial.
A mother who lost much of her family in Srebrenica condemned his absence.
“Today again the war criminal Karadzic did not appear at his trial,” Nirmela Kolenovic said. “For me, it means he is a coward and he has acted in a cowardly manner toward the Serbian people.”
The complex trial is expected to last until at least 2012 and involve hundreds of witnesses. There are more than 1 million pages of prosecution documents.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Karadžić Genocide Trial Begins
By Katherine Iliopoulos |
The trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić commenced without him on October 26, and burdened with the weight of expectation. The only one of the ‘big three’ from the Bosnian war of the 1990s in custody – the late Slobodan Milošević and fugitive Ratko Mladic having both evaded justice by different means – his trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes may come to represent one of the most important for the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. One key concern for the Tribunal will be to avoid a repeat of the most criticised aspects of the Slobodan Milošević trial – which lasted several years and ended prematurely with the death of the accused in custody. At issue particularly will be the court’s handling of Karadžić’s decision to represent himself during the trial; the judges must allow him enough time and scope to conduct his defence without unwittingly sanctioning delay tactics or ideological tirades. In the interests of simplifying the trial and ensuring it is completed within a reasonable timeframe, the Tribunal has already compelled the prosecution to trim the original indictment, which had listed only one count of genocide among the eleven charges, but now includes two counts of genocide but a lesser number of crime sites, incidents and municipalities, for which a not guilty plea has been entered on Karadžić’s behalf. As he had forewarned, Karadžić failed to appear in the courtroom and the case was adjourned after 30 minutes. He is not expected to appear on the second day, but judges have warned that they would start the case without him. The prosecution had urged the judges to impose a defence lawyer on Karadžić, as was done in relation to Milošević, but the they have not yet made a decision in this regard. |
 |
Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, enters the courtroom at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, Friday Aug. 29, 2008. Karadzic refused to enter pleas to the 11 charges, including genocide and crimes against humanity, filed against him. After his refusal to plead, Presiding Judge Iain Bonomy entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. (AP Photo/ Valerie Kuypers, Pool). |
The main allegations against the former President of Republika Srpska relate to the 44-month “Siege of Sarajevo” - a sniping and shelling campaign designed to spread terror - that left over 10,000 dead, the July 1995 massacre of around 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, and the taking of UN personnel hostage to prevent NATO and international air strikes against Bosnian Serb military targets. According to the prosecution, these three criminal conspiracies formed part of an overarching plan, of which Karadžić was a part, to ethnically cleanse non-Serbs from Serb-claimed territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to "eliminate" Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, carried out between October 1991 and November 30, 1995. The Prosecution alleges that as part of a persecutory campaign, Karadžić formulated and executed a campaign of sniping and shelling against besieged Sarajevo in order to spread terror among its civilian population. The campaign of terror was said to be an important means of achieving the Bosnian-Serb leadership’s territorial ambitions and statehood. The level of terror was moderated in order to secure concessions from the BiH government or to prevent NATO and international intervention in the conflict.He is also accused of having targeted Bosniak and Croat political leaders, intellectuals and professionals, unlawfully deporting and transferring civilians because of national or religious identity, and of having been responsible for the destruction of homes, businesses and sacred sites. Central to the accused's defence is his claim that in 1996 former US Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke offered him immunity from prosecution, in return for surrendering power. It is an allegation Holbrooke vehemently denies. The Chamber has ruled that even if such an agreement existed, it could not bind the Tribunal, nor could an agreement entered into by the Prosecution. In a Decision of October 12, 2009, the Appeals Chamber indicated that it will permit Karadžić to pursue the Holbrooke agreement issue insofar as it may be relevant to sentencing and mitigation. The two genocide charges that are listed in the latest indictment relate to "the crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1992 and the second to the July 1995 massacre in Srebrenica” including the "death or forced departure" of non-Serbs from over 40 Bosnian towns and the widespread killing in detention camps. The first charge can be seen as a long shot by the prosecution, since the Tribunal has until now always rejected the idea that the campaign of ethnic cleansing across Bosnia in 1992 rose to the level of genocide. In particular, the court acquitted Karadžić’s political colleague Momčilo Krajišnik, sometimes known as the “architect of ethnic cleansing”, of genocide charges in 2006. As far as the second charge, the Tribunal established as ‘legal fact’ that genocide was committed by the Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica in April 2004 when it convicted the Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstic of aiding and abetting genocide in connection with the massacres of Bosnian Muslims that took place after the fall of the so-called ‘safe haven’. Genocide is considered the ‘crime of crimes’ under international law but also the most difficult to prove because of the requirement to show a specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. The prosecution has alleged that following the fall of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, Karadžić and Mladic, working with other military and civilian officials, directed the forcible transfer of the Muslim population out of the enclave and the mass executions of over 8,000 men and boys. Karadžić knew that executing the men and expelling their families from Srebrenica would have a catastrophic and lasting impact on the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, according to the prosecution: “In a patriarchal society, such as the Muslim community of Srebrenica, the execution of the majority of men made it almost impossible for the Bosnian Muslim women who survived to successfully re-establish their lives”. This claim is a deliberate echo of the Court’s earlier appeals decision in the Krstic case. In relation to the Siege of Sarajevo, the prosecution alleges that Karadžić shared a common plan in relation to the terror campaign against civilians but it does not explicitly allege that this campaign was directed at the elimination of non-Serbs from Sarajevo, although it is alleged to have given rise to a number of war crimes. It appears from a reading of his pre-trial brief that during the course of the trial, Karadžić will try to demonstrate that the knowledge of a plan or policy ought to be considered as an element of the crime of genocide which must therefore be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Karadžić quotes Professor William Schabas - an advocate of the inclusion of the plan requirement as an element of the crime of genocide – who reasons that genocide is so closely associated with a State plan or policy, such that "it is nearly impossible to imagine genocide that is not planned or organized either by the State itself or a state like entity or by some clique associated with it". Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the word ‘genocide’ and helped draft the Genocide Convention, defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves". If the Tribunal finds that the plan requirement is a formal element of the crime of genocide, the prosecution will have to prove - in addition to the other elements of the crime - that Karadžić either intended his conduct to be part of the larger genocidal plan or policy or at least knew that his conduct was part of that plan or policy. Count 11 of the indictment charges Karadžić with the war crime of ‘hostage taking’ in connection with the fact that over 200 UN peacekeepers and military observers were detained at various locations and used as human shields in order to render the locations immune from NATO air strikes. Karadžić argued in a pre-trial Motion that in relation to the crime of hostage-taking under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, under customary international law the scope of the application of Common Article 3 to an international armed conflict is limited to “civilians”. The indictment identified the victims of the crime of hostage taking as UN military observers and peacekeepers and that they were persons taking no active part in the hostilities. But Karadžić argued that the ‘hostages’ were non-civilians and ought to be classified as prisoners of war (POWs) to which the Third Geneva Convention applies and which does not contain a specific prohibition on hostage-taking. Interestingly, at the time of the incident the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) disagreed that the peacekeepers that had been collected by the Bosnian Serbs were ‘hostages’. That was because the UN had ordered air strikes it had therefore become involved in the Bosnian conflict, with the implication that its personnel were therefore prisoners of war. However, as soon as the personnel were forced to serve as human shields, the ICRC argued that they were being used as hostages and not as prisoners of war. In response to Karadžić’s Motion, the Tribunal affirmed that Common Article 3 clearly refers to the prohibition on hostage taking on any person taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs, whether in an internal or international armed conflict. It stated that the status of the UN personnel has not been established on the face of the indictment and will be a matter of evidence to be determined during the trial. To date, the ICTY has not specifically addressed whether the detention of combatants can qualify as hostage taking. Some 290 witnesses will be relied upon the prosecution to prove its case, some of whom have been granted protective measures. "I would go to the moon to get justice for my son," witness and victim Dzenana Sokolovic told BBC journalist Alan Little last week. She and her 7-year-old son were gunned down as they returned from collecting firewood, which involved a dangerous sprint across an intersection near an apartment block housing a group of Serb snipers. After she was shot she was heard screaming “Where’s my boy?”, unaware that Nermin already lay dead in a pool of blood after being struck in the head with a bullet. As with other witnesses, the judges will have to determine the reliability of the evidence. In relation to this witness, they will need to be satisfied that the bullets were fired from that location and not by other combatants defending Sarajevo. In the wake of the Milošević precedent, where the accused represented himself and refused to adopt defence counsel, the Tribunal is faced with the issue of how to deal with Karadžić’s insistence on self-representation. There were fears of another long, drawn out trial, delaying justice to victims, before the Tribunal rejected Karadžić’s request for a 10-month extension and insisted on the trial commencing in late October and finishing by 2012. Now the issue seems to be procedural fairness and the rights of Karadžić. The issue of self-representation is inextricably linked to an assessment of adequate trial preparation. How can this ‘right’ – established as such in the Milošević case on the basis of the Tribunal’s interpretation of 21(4)(d) of the ICTY Statute – be reconciled with the main side-effect of an inadequately staffed ‘legal team’: the need for more trial preparation time and thus the right to a fair trial? It is clear that some sort of compromise would need to be reached, respecting the rights of the accused in a way that does not allow an abuse of the proceedings for political ends, and without deterring witnesses from testifying. Arguably, fair trial rights include the right to have counsel, not the right not to have it. A genuinely ‘fair’ trial does not seem possible without adequate legal assistance. One of Karadžić’s legal advisers, Peter Robinson, has said that he will boycott the trial until he is adequately prepared to defend the prosecution case, which he says relies on over a million pages of witness testimony and is "the biggest, most complex, important, and sensitive case ever before this tribunal". Similar tactics were used by Milošević. But Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz denies that Karadžić’s rights have not been respected, saying that Karadžić, who has filed almost 270 motions on various issues since his transfer to the tribunal's detention centre, has had 15 months to prepare since his arrest in Belgrade last year. It is unclear how the trial will proceed without Karadžić in the dock, as the Tribunal’s procedural rules do not allow for trials in absentia. Possible options for the judges would include either postponing the trial, imposing counsel to represent him, starting without him, or compelling him to attend. Or, seeking more time on an ad hoc basis, for example, before each witness commences testimony. If counsel is imposed, for example current adviser Robinson, the case would have to be postponed for some months to allow him to prepare. Karadžić’s trial has been streamlined to include the main incidents, but many atrocities will go unaddressed. Many observers believe that the Karadžić trial it will be a relatively straightforward affair compared with that of Slobodan Milošević. Gideon Boas, a senior legal officer in charge of managing the Milošević trial for the Tribunal’s Chambers, suggests that the Milošević indictment bears much of the responsibility for the long and arduous trial. But, the number of witnesses to be called and the volume of documentation can also play a part. The Bagosora trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which heard 242 witnesses and examined over 35,000 pages of documents, lasted six years despite an indictment of reasonable length and scope, and representation by counsel. But a promising sign in this case is the lack of grandstanding, interruptions and preaching that characterised Milošević’s pre-trial appearances. Some of the other politicians who served alongside Karadžić in the Bosnian Serb leadership have already been convicted. One of those is Krajišnik, currently serving a 20-year sentence, a member of the National Security Council of the Republika Srpska during the relevant period. In 2006 he was convicted of persecutions, extermination, murder, deportation and forced transfer but acquitted of genocide, but in March 2009 he was acquitted on appeal of several of these charges, though the appeals court upheld his conviction for the crime against humanity of persecution effected through deportation and forcible transfer. Appeals judges confirmed that Karadžić and Krajišnik were members of the same joint criminal enterprise at the apex of the Bosnian Serb political hierarchy. Karadžić is charged with many of the crimes committed against non-Serbs in Bosnia, including genocide, for which Krajišnik was acquitted. Some legal commentators are worried that the inability of the prosecution to convict Krajišnik of the most serious crimes may have a bearing on the likelihood of a conviction of Karadžić for the same crimes. “Karadžić is [Krajišnik's] political twin so the evidence that applies to one applies to the other”, Michael Karnavas, a defence lawyer at the Hague tribunal, told the Institute for War and Peace Reporting following the Krajišnik appeal. "If they couldn't getKrajišnik [for many charges in his indictment], it's going to be very difficult to prove similar charges against Karadžić, unless there's additional evidence." But other observers are less sceptical, saying that Krajišnik's convictions had been overturned not because of a lack of evidence, but because of a lack of proper findings by the trial chamber. Even so, it seems the prosecution will need to present more evidence in this case. The judges may require the prosecution to put forward more detailed evidence in relation to the allegation that Karadžić participated in a joint criminal enterprise, to establish a link between Karadžić and lower-level perpetrators, and to determine the time when certain criminal acts became part of the criminal plan to remove non-Serbs from large areas of Bosnia. After the first two days of prosecution evidence, consisting of the opening statement, the court will adjourn until the following week, when Karadžić is scheduled to give his opening statement in response. Karadžić was the political leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the 1992-95 war which left 100,000 dead, mainly Bosnian Muslims, and resulted in a country partitioned between a Serbian entity and a Muslim-Croat entity. Prosecutors had wanted to try Karadžić together with his wartime military chief, General Ratko Mladic, who remains at large. The trial is expected to last at least three years. Source: Crimes of War Project |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)