Sexual Crimes in Conflict Database

A collection of relevant literature and case law

Showing 21 to 23 of 23 results.

  • Jurisprudence judicial mechanism

    ICTR - Jerome Bicamumpaka (Bizimungu et al. “Government II”)

    Country
    Rwanda
    Keywords
    Acquittal Insufficient Evidence War Crimes Rape as Crime Against Humanity

    Reference link
    http://www.unictr.org/en/cases/ictr-99-50
    Type of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal/Court
    Name of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
    Name of accused
    Jerome Bicamumpaka
    Charges
    Rape as a crime against humanity and outrages upon personal dignity as a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II as war crimes under Articles 6(1) and 6(3).
    Trial chamber verdict
    The charges were not substantiated with material facts related to the sexual violence.Mid-trial, in 2005, Bicamumpaka was acquitted of the sexual violence charges due to a lack of evidence (See the Decision on Defense Motions Pursuant to Rule 98bis).
    Appeals chamber verdict
    Bicamumpaka was acquitted by the Trial Chamber (on 30 September 2011) on all counts.
    Status
    2715
    Case number
    ICTR-99-50

  • Jurisprudence judicial mechanism

    ICTR - Tharcisse Muvunyi

    Country
    Rwanda
    Keywords
    Acquittal Command Responsibility Insufficient Evidence Tutsi Rape as Crime Against Humanity

    Reference link
    http://unictr.unmict.org/en/cases/ictr-00-55
    Type of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal/Court
    Name of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
    Name of accused
    Tharcisse Muvunyi
    Charges
    Muvunyi was charged with sexual violence, i.e. rape as a crime against humanity under Article 6(3) (command responsibility).
    Trial chamber verdict
    The Trial Chamber found Muvunyi not guilty under this charge (on 12 September 2006). The Chamber held that the evidence heard that soldiers from ESO Camp committed rape did not support the specific allegation in the indictment that soldiers from Ngoma Camp committed rape and therefore it would be prejudicial and unfair to hold this evidence against Muvunyi.
    sentencing
    Muvunyi was sentenced to 15 years on 1 April 2011 (for other charges).
    Appeals chamber verdict
    Although the Prosecution challenged Muvunyi’s acquittal for rape as a crime against humanity, the Appeals Chamber (on 29 August 2008) dismissed the Prosecution’s ground of appeal. The Appeals Chamber held that: 1) the Trial Chamber did not err in law by finding that it would be prejudicial to consider the evidence of rape by ESO Camp soldiers in light of the rape allegation in the indictment; 2) even if the defect in the indictment could have been remedied, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the Prosecution provided timely, clear, and consistent information of this new material fact to Muvunyi.
    Status
    2715
    Case number
    ICTR-00-55

  • Jurisprudence judicial mechanism

    ICTR - Tharcisse Renzaho

    Country
    Rwanda
    Keywords
    Acquittal Command Responsibility Deficit in Pleading Rape as Crime Against Humanity

    Reference link
    http://unictr.unmict.org/en/cases/ictr-97-31
    Type of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal/Court
    Name of mechanism
    International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
    Name of accused
    Tharcisse Renzaho
    Charges
    Genocide, rape as a crime against humanity and rape as a violation of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II as a war crime under Article 6(3) (command responsibility) for his failure to prevent the rapes of Witnesses AWO, AWN and Witness AWN’s sister.
    Trial chamber verdict
    Renzaho was found guilty by the Trial Chamber (on 14 July 2009) for the sexual violence crimes.
    sentencing
    Renzaho received a sentence of life imprisonment on 1 April 2011 (for other charges).
    Appeals chamber verdict
    The Appeals Chamber reversed the above convictions (on 1 April 2011), because it found that Renzaho’s reason to know of the rapes of Witness AWO, Witness AWN and Witness AWN’s sister was not pleaded in the indictment nor communicated by the Prosecution in a manner sufficient to give notice to Renzaho and that he was materially prejudiced by this defect.
    Status
    2715
    Case number
    ICTR-97-31

This is free software. Created with LinkAhead and Django. Licenced under AGPL version 3.0 (Sources).