716 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 126 of
144
next >
last >>
Germany v. Italy: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)
Judgment, 3 Feb 2012, International Court of Justice, The Netherlands
Between 2004 and 2008, Italian courts had issued a number of judgments in which plaintiffs, victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the German Reich during WWII, were awarded damages against Germany.
Ultimately, in 2008, Germany filed an application instituting proceedings against Italy before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that "[i]n recent years, Italian judicial bodies have repeatedly disregarded the jurisdictional immunity of Germany as a sovereign State", thus violating international law. Italy disagreed, stating that the underlying acts were violations of jus cogens and therefore gave it the right to strip Germany from its immunity. Greece joined the proceedings as one of the Italian judgments concerned a declaration of enforcability by an Italian court of a Greek judgment that ordered Germany to pay compensation to victims of the Distomo massacre (in Greece). This declaration led to measures of constraint on German property in Italy.
The Court rejected Italy's claims and fully agreed with Germany's points. State immunity is part of customary international law, and the fact that the underlying acts (the WWII crimes) were violations of jus cogens did not deprive Germany from its jurisdictional immunity.
Importantly, though, the Court notes that while the current judgment confirms jurisdictional immunity of states, this does not in any way alter the possibility to hold individuals criminally responsible for certain acts.
Ivanović : Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Željko Ivanović a/k/a Arkan
Second Instance Decision on the Revocation of the First Instance Verdict, 5 Dec 2012, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Appellate Division granted the appeal in this case, revoked the first instance verdict, and ordered a retrial. On 17 June 2013, in the second-instance verdict, the Appeals Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused Željko Ivanović guilty of the criminal offense of genocide and sentenced him to a 24-year long-term imprisonment.
Prosecutor v. Mohammed G.
Judgment, 23 Oct 2013, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
This is the one of the first cases in Europe in which a person was tried for attempting to travel to Syria to join the jihad. Mohammed G., a 24-year old Dutch national, made several preparations for his departure; he booked an airplane ticket from Amsterdam to Gaziantep (Turkey), he packed his suitcase and expressed his support for the jihad multiple times. The District Court of Rotterdam found Mohammed G. not guilty of preparatory acts for and/or the committing of terrorist crimes. However, it did find the defendant guilty of preparatory acts to commit murder. According to the Court, these acts had to be seen ‘within the framework of terrorism’.
The defendant suffered from a psychotic disorder, meaning that he suffered from hallucinations in which he heard a voice in his head ordering him to take action within the framework of jihad. On the basis of this fact, the Court found the defendant not criminally responsible and acquitted him. Instead, the defendant was ordered to spend a year in a psychiatric hospital.
R v Choudary and Rahman: R v Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Holroyde, 6 Sep 2016, Central Criminal Court, Great Britain (UK)
Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman were both sentenced to 5.5 years’ imprisonment for inviting support for the Islamic State. Both men signed an oath of allegiance to the terrorist group that was published online and had broadcast a series of lectures online in which they denounced democracy and called for Muslims to support the establishment of the caliphate. In sentencing the two defendants, Justice Holroyde emphasised the seriousness of these offences, despite their indirect nature and the lack of violence directly caused, due to “the timing of [the] … communications, [the defendants’] high standing, the size of the audience [addressed] …, and the likelihood that those audiences would include impressionable persons who would be influenced by what” was said (p. 9). Upon release, both Mr. Choudary and Mr. Rahman will be subject to notification requirements for 15 years.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.: United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
decision not yet available, Military Commission, United States
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani of Kuwait birth, is the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States which claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people.
Captured in Pakistan in 2003, he has been in United States custody, most recently at Guantanamo Bay, ever since. Mohammed, along with four other 9/11 planners, were charged and tried before a United States Military Commission in 2008 until charges were dropped in 2010. Following a failed attempt to transfer the five co-defendants to new York to stand trial before a civilian federal court, they were indicted once again in February 2011. Their trial is currently underway before the Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay.
<< first
< prev
page 126 of
144
next >
last >>