skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: haagse stadspartij 'the hague city party' netherlands

> Refine results with advanced case search

716 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 48 of 144   next > last >>

Blagojević & Jokić: The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić

Appeals Judgment, 9 May 2007, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

The municipality of Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked and taken under the control of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) in July 1995. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from women, children and the elderly, and, subsequently, murdered. The others were removed from Srebrenica by buses. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić played a crucial role in the commission of crimes by units of the VRS in the aftermath of the attacks on Srebrenica. Trial Chamber I convicted Blagojević of complicity in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Jokić was also found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber found that Trial Chamber I made an error in finding Blagojević guilty of complicity in genocide, since his knowledge of the forcible transfer operations, the mistreatments and the murders were not enough to establish that he knew of the genocidal intent (a special mental requirement for the crime of genocide) of the perpetrators. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber reversed his conviction for this crime and reduced his initial sentence of 18 years to 15 years of imprisonment.

All other grounds of Blagojević's appeal were rejected, together with the grounds adduced by Dragan Jokić and the Prosecution.


Boškoski & Tarčulovski: Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski

Judgment (public), 10 Jul 2008, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

On 12 August 2001, a group of armed individuals under the leadership of Johan Tarčulovski entered the village of Ljuboten in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The men targeted ethnic Albanians through shootings, setting houses on fire and mistreating the captured people. During this time, Ljube Boškoski was the Minister of Interior of FYROM.

 Trial Chamber II examined the incidents at Ljuboten and other locations. It concluded with respect to Boškoski that he knew that crimes were being committed in and around Ljuboten, and since he reported the incidents to the authorities that should have investigated these allegations, fulfilled his obligations to take steps to punish those who were responsible. Accordingly, he cannot be held guilty on any of the charges.

 Tarculovski, on the other hand, was actively participating in the events of 12 August 2001. He was the leader of the operation and participant in the events. Therefore, Trial Chamber II found him guilty for the war crimes of murder, wanton destruction and cruel treatment. He was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.


Viktor Bout : Public Prosecutor v. Viktor Bout

Appeal against decision on extradition request, 23 Aug 2010, Court of Appeal, Thailand

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In first instance, the Thai Criminal Court rejected the United States’ extradition request, stating that the charges did not fell within the scope of the extradition treaty. The US appealed.

The Court of Appeal found that extradition is possible, since the charged offenses were punishable both under Thai and US law. Also, the Court disagreed with the Criminal Court on the political nature of the charges. Even though both Courts considered the FARC to be a politically oriented organisation, Bout was not a member of the FARC. Therefore, his offences were ‘ordinary’ offences, the Court reasoned, which fell within the scope of the extradition treaty.


Ndindiliyimana et al.: The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Augustin Bizimungu, Francois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye and Innocent Sagahutu

Judgement and Sentence, 17 May 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Members of the pre-dominantly Hutu Rwandan Armed Forces, including the Rwandan Army (FAR), the Gendarmerie Nationale and the elite reconnaissance unit, the RECCE Battalion, along with Interahamwe militia members perpetrated a series of attacks against largely unarmed Tutsi civilians.

The incidents concerned by the present case are numerous and include the killings of Tutsi at Kansi Parish, St André College, Nyanza Hill, Musambara commune office and many more. Women and girls were also raped. The Prime Minister and the Belgian personnel guarding her were also assassinated by members of the RECCE Battalion. The present case brings together four key military leaders, responsible for the conduct of the soldiers and gendarmes who perpetrated the afore-mentioned attacks: Ndindiliyimana was Chief of the Gendarmerie Nationale, Bizimungu was head of the FAR, Nzuwonemeye was Commander of the RECCE Battalion and Sagahutu was commander of one of the combat squadrons of the same RECCE Battalion. In light of their authority over their respective forces, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found Ndindiliyimana guily of genocide, crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; Bizimungu guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, murder and rape as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II; and Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu guilty of crimes against humanity and murder as a Violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. 

Bizimungu received a 30-year sentence, Nzuwonemeye and Sagahutu each received 20 year sentences. Controversially, Ndindiliyimana received a sentence for time served, meaning that his 11 years in detention prior to and during the trial sufficed and he was released following the judgment. On Appeal, Ndindiliyimana and Nzuwonemeye were aquitted, Sagahutu had his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity affirmed, but the sentence lowered from 20 to 15 years and Bizimungu's sentence was upheld to 30 years inprisonment.


Samantar: Bashe Abdi Yousuf et al. v. Mohamed Ali Samantar

Memorandum Opinion, 2 Nov 2012, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

Members of the Isaaq clan allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

After a line of litigation spanning 3 years and including a Supreme Court decision, Samantar accepted liability as a superior for the crimes perpetrated by his subordinates in the Somali Armed Forces and the affiliated national intelligence services. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded $21 million in damages.

The present decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the result of Samantar’s appeal against the District Court’s dismissal of his claims for immunity from proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal finding that Samantar enjoys no immunity for acts of torture, summary execution and arbitrary detention even if they were performed by him in his official capacity as such conduct is universally prohibited. 


<< first < prev   page 48 of 144   next > last >>