Search results

Ahmad al-Y. was accused of two crimes: the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity and participation in a terrorist organisation. The court finds that the accused fought in Syria alongside the terrorist organisation Ahrar al-Sham and he is therefore convicted of participation in a terrorist organisation.

Unlike the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal does not find the suspect guilty of the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity. The videos show the accused spitting towards the deceased person and putting his foot near a body, while he was celebrating a victory over soldiers of the Syrian Government. Although the actions of him and his fellow fighters are disrespectful and distasteful, the court finds that this conduct does not meet the threshold necessary for this crime. The conduct is not degrading or humiliating enough. The victims are not severely suffering and are not displayed as a trophy.

The accused is sentenced to five years and four months of imprisonment, which is lower than usual, since the case took unreasonably long.

Mr Salih Mustafa, a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was accused of four war crimes including arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture, and murder. For three weeks in August of 1999, Mr Mustafa and his subordinates imprisoned six civilians in a barn at a compound held by the KLA in Zllash, Kosovo.  

The court found, through the testimony of the five detainees who survived, that Mr Mustafa and his men subjected the detainees to inhumane conditions and treatment. The detainees were beaten with batons and hatchet handles, burned, electrocuted, threatened, and given urine when they complained of thirst. The court found that Mr Mustafa and his subordinates committed these acts against these victims together as part of a joint criminal enterprise. Their actions and refusal to provide medical care to the victims even led to the death of one of the detainees.

The court convicted Mr Mustafa of the war crimes of arbitrary detention, torture, and murder. The court found that the crime of cruel treatment is included in the crime of torture so it would be unnecessary to convict the accused of both crimes. The court sentenced Mr Mustafa to 26 years imprisonment  and ordered him to pay reparations of €207,000 to the victims.

Al Bahlul is a Yemeni national that has been imprisoned at the United States Detention Camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, since 2002. After over a decade of legal proceedings related to his role as a media and propaganda secretary in al Qaeda and his involvement in the 2000 Bombing of U.S.S. Cole and the 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, USA, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected his appeal for resentencing and upheld his life sentence.

While Al Bahlul’s legal team argued that the lower courts and the Military Commission failed to adequately reconsider his sentencing after his initial 2008 convictions were appealed and evidence of potential torture was introduced, the D.C. Circuit disagreed. It held that the CMCR adequately considered the appropriate sentence for the conspiracy conviction and that evidence on the grounds of torture was inadmissible because regulations on admissible evidence were stricter at the time of Bahlul’s original sentencing and he should have made that claim in the previous decade of appeals.

On 16 December 2022, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC) convicted Mr. Salih Mustafa of three counts of war crimes including arbitrary detention, torture, and murder. Mr. Mustafa was sentenced to twenty-six years in prison, and he was ordered to pay €207,000 to the victims. Mr. Mustafa appealed his conviction arguing the Trial Panel of the KSC made over fifty legal and factual errors when handing down the original judgment and sentence.

Mr. Mustafa first argued that the Trial Panel mistakenly relied on improper evidence and uncredible witness statements made by the victims to make its ultimate decision. The Appeals Panel of the KSC found that the evidence used in Mr. Mustafa’s trial was proper and credible, so it dismissed these issues. Mr. Mustafa then argued that there was not enough evidence to prove each crime for which he was convicted, and that the Trial Panel did not correctly apply the law when looking at each crime. The Appeals panel found that there was enough evidence to convict on each charge and that the Trial Panel applied the law correctly.

Mr. Mustafa’s last argument claimed that the Trial Panel did not properly follow the law when sentencing which led to an excessive sentence of twenty-six years. The Appeal Panel found that the Trial Panel followed the law when determining the original sentence, except that it failed to properly consider similar cases in international and domestic Kosovo law. The Appeals Panel considered sentencing in similar cases and decided to reduce Mr. Mustafa’s sentence from twenty-six years to twenty-two years total. After Mr. Mustafa brought the sentencing issue to the Supreme Court Chamber of the KSC, the Appeals Chamber again reevaluated its sentence on 10 September 2024 and further reduced the sentence from twenty-two years to fifteen years in prison including the time Mr. Mustafa had already served.

Mr Raslan was accused of committing crimes against humanity, torture, rape, sexual coercion, murder, and numerous other serious crimes in violation of international law. In 2022, the Koblenz Higher Regional Court convicted him for his part in Syria’s violent suppression of oppositionists and sentenced him to life in prison. Mr Raslan appealed his conviction on several grounds, which the present Appeals Order assessed.

First, Mr Raslan argued that since he was acting on behalf of the Syrian government, his actions should be immune to prosecution. The court disagreed, stating that acting under the direction of the state does not provide immunity for the commission of international crimes. Second, Mr Raslan argued that allowing the prosecution to read a UN Commission of Inquiry report to establish much of the factual background violated a rule that normally requires an individual to testify to their findings. The court disagreed and applied an exception that allows reports from public authorities to be read in court without calling the authors to testify. The court reasoned that the United Nations is to be treated on a par with any German public authority, and as a public authority, its reports are generally considered reliable. It also explained that the experts who drafted the reports would likely have little to add beyond what is already written, so requiring them to testify would be unreasonably burdensome without providing any real benefit.

Third, Mr Raslan challenged several of his convictions on multiple grounds. The court reduced a conviction of rape to sexual coercion because, at the time the crime was committed, the law required Mr Raslan to be physically present, which he was not. The court also overturned two counts of sexual coercion because those two crimes were already tried correctly in his conviction for crimes against humanity. In other words, he cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Two counts of sexually abusing prisoners were reduced to aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of prisoners because, like his former rape conviction, the law at the time required that he be physically present, and he was not. Finally, his last count of sexual abuse of a prisoner was overturned and dismissed because the government only has five years after the crime to bring charges for this offense.

Mr Raslan’s sentence of life imprisonment remained unaltered.