716 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 10 of
144
next >
last >>
Akayesu: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu
Judgement / Sentence, 2 Sep 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber I), Tanzania
The present judgment constitutes the first-ever judgment by an international court for the crime of genocide. The Accused, Jean-Paul Akayesu, was the Bourgmestre (mayor) of Taba and was indicted on 15 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II thereto.
On 2 September 1998, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR unanimously found Akayesu guilty of nine out of the 15 counts on which he was charged, and not guilty of six counts in his Indictment. Specifically, he was found guilty of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity (extermination, murder, torture, rape, and other inhumane acts).
The Trial Chamber found that the aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating factors, especially in light of the fact that Akayesu had consciously chosen to participate in the genocide. For this reason, the Chamber imposed several terms of imprisonment on Akayesu, noting that each sentence should be served concurrently. Hence, it directed that he should serve a single sentence of life imprisonment.
Selliaha/Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE): The Prosecutor v. Selliaha/Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Judgment given after full argument on both sides, 21 Oct 2011, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
Five men, allegedly members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, a rebel group in Sri Lanka), were brought before the District Court of the Hague (the Netherlands) on charges of, among others, extortion, money laundering, and raising funds for a terrorist organization. The European Union (EU) placed the LTTE on a list of terrorist organizations in 2006. The present judgment was handed down against one of the suspects, identified only as Selliaha, who acted as the LTTE’s overseas bookkeeper.
The five men, including Selliaha, allegedly extorted millions of Euros through blackmails and threats in order to fund the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
The District Court found Selliaha guilty of invlovement with a criminal organization, but not of supporting terrorism. Furthermore, the District Court considered that the conflict in Sri Lanka amounts to a non-international armed conflict, but dismissed a large number of charges on the basis that the Netherlands was not party to the conflict. Moreover, the District Court ruled that the EU’s classification of the LTTE as a banned organization, made the fundraising operations unlawful in the Netherlands.
The District Court acquitted Selliaha of extortion but convicted him of threatening prospective donators. Selliaha was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment, the longest sentence of the five accused.
Blackman: Regina v. Sergeant Alexander Wayne Blackman ("Marine A")
Sentencing Remarks, 6 Dec 2013, General Court Martial held at Military Court Centre Bulford, Great Britain (UK)
On 15 September 2011, while on patrol in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan, UK Marines Sergeant Alexander Blackman and his men were on patrol. They found a Taliban insurgent who had been seriously wounded (lawfully) by an Apache helicopter, and as such formed no longer a threat. After removing his AK47, magazines and a grenade, Blackman caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of his operational headquarters at Shazad so that "PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him". He ordered those of his men giving some first aid to stop, and when he was sure headquarters could not see him, he discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. He then told his patrol to remain silent about what happened, saying that he had just broken the Geneva Convention.
Taking into consideration Blackman's superior position as sergeant (under command of the patrol) and the consequences his acts could have for other British soldiers - namely possible reprisals - the Court found Blackman guilty of murder in violation of the laws of war (a war crime). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a possibility for parole after ten years, stripped of his ranks and dismissed from service with disgrace.
Duch: The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch
Judgement, 26 Jul 2010, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Cambodia
After the fall of the Cambodian government in 1975, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Pol Pot, came to power and renamed the state the Democratic Kampuchea. An armed conflict broke out with Vietnam, which lasted until 1979. From 1975 until 1979, Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea sought to establish a revolutionary state and introduced a policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies, a form of physical and psychological destruction that consisted of arbitrary detention, torture and execution. This policy was implemented at a number of interrogation centres, one of which was S21. Duch, a former mathematics teacher, was the Chairman of S21 responsible for extracting confessions and information, and teaching interrogation techniques.
In the first ever judgment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Trial Chamber convicted Duch of multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, minus five years as a result of his unlawful detention by the Cambodian Military Court for eight years prior to his transfer to the ECCC. This was also the first case before an international tribunal to allow victims of the crimes to participate in proceedings as civil parties and claim reparations for the harm they have suffered.
A. v. The Minister of Defence
Interim judgment on the appeal against the Court of The Hague’s judgment of 1 November 2005, 25 Mar 2013, Administrative High Court Three-judge Section, The Netherlands
The appellant is a former soldier of Dutchbat III, a battalion which was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission that was charged with the protection of civilians in the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. The appellant claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being confronted with the atrocities against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and experiencing the explosion of a nearby mortar shell. He brought a complaint against the Dutch Minister of Defence and requested compensation for not receiving the necessary care after the mission.
On 1 November 2005, the District Court of The Hague held that the Minister of Defence failed to provide the necessary aftercare for his soldiers after the fall of Srebrenica and upon their return to the Netherlands.
On 25 March 2013, the Administrative High Court of the Netherlands ruled that necessary care was provided during the mission in Srebrenica because the soldiers were trained and equipped. However, the Court affirmed that the Dutch Minister of Defence failed to provide necessary care for his soldiers after they returned home. As a result, the Court found that the Minister could be held liable for the PTSD of the soldier which he developed after the mission.
<< first
< prev
page 10 of
144
next >
last >>