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 78 of 144   next > last >>

Škrobić: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Marko Škrobić

Second Instance Verdict, 22 Apr 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section for War Crimes, Appelate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 31 July 1992, in Novo Selo (Kotor Varoš Municipality), Marko Škrobić, as a member of the Kotor Varoš HVO (Croat Defence Council) unit, entered the house of Glamocak family, together with four other armed persons. He ordered Boro Glamocak and his family to leave the house immediately. He also forced Stojko Glamocak, Boro’s father, out of the adjacent building and marched the family into the direction of the village of Ravne. On the way to that village, Marko Škrobić shot Stojko with a pistol, leading to his death.

A Trial Court had found Škrobić guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment on 22 October 2008. Both the Defence and Prosecution appealed to this decision.

The Appellate Panel dismissed as unfounded an appeal filed by the Prosecutor’s Office; dismissed appeals filed by the Defence and upheld an appeal filed by the Defence regarding the sentencing. The Panel held that the Trial Court had failed to properly take account of the fact that Škrobić was a married father of two minor children. Therefore, the Panel revised the sentence of Škrobić to nine years’ imprisonment


Bowoto v. Chevron: Larry Bowoto et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al.

Opinion, 10 Sep 2010, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States

The case arose as a result of three brutal firearm attacks upon unarmed protesters and innocent citizens in Nigeria between May 1998 and January 1999. The plaintiffs allege that in each instance, the Chevron Corporation acted in concert with the Nigerian military and police to plan, order and execute the attacks including through the participation of Chevron security personnel and equipment, the payment of funds to the military and police, and the purchase of equipment and materials including ammunition. The plaintiffs were either summarily executed, seriously injured, burned in a fire set during the attack or tortured by the military and police thereafter. Such acts were intended to force the plaintiffs to cease their protests against Chevron’s damage to the lands and the plaintiffs’ livelihood and discourage any further behaviour.

The first case of its kind to be decided by a jury trial, Bowoto v. Chevron Corporation was decided in favour of Chevron, clearing them of all liability. The present decision is an appeal by the plaintiffs, which was ultimately unsuccessful as the Court of Appeals upheld the judgement of the District Court. 


Bagosora & Nsengiyumva: Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 14 Dec 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Anatole Nsengiyumva served as Head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Army General Staff and Commander of the Gisenyi Operational Sector from June 1993 to July 1994. He was initially found guilty by Trial Chamber I of the ICTR on 18 December 2008 of genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts), and violence to life for ordering the killings in Gisenyi town on 7 April, Mudende University, Nyundo Parish and aiding and abetting the killings in Bisesero. The Chamber later reversed some of these convictions and it set aside his sentence to life imprisonment imposing on him a sentence of 15 years imprisonment instead.

Théoneste Bagosora was appointed directeur de cabinet for the Ministry of Defence in June 1992, where he served until July 1994. The Trial Chamber I convicted him for genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, other inhumane acts, and rapes), and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life and outrages upon personal dignity), for his participation in the events in Rwanda in 1994. The Appeals Chamber reversed some of these convictions, setting aside his sentence to life imprisonment and sentencing him to 35 years of imprisonment instead.


Da Silva: The Prosecutor v. Joao Franca da Silva alias Johni Franca

Judgement, 5 Dec 2002, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Joao Franca da Silva, was the Commander of the Kaer Metin Merah Putih militia (KMP) in Lolotoe. In May 1999, he participated in a number of attacks directed at independence supporters including the detention of numerous individuals at the KORAMIL military centre who were kept in small rooms without proper sanitation, and many of whom were beaten and interrogated about their connections. He also ordered the beating of a number of independence supporters, and in one vicious incident, he forced the victim to eat his own ear.

The Lolotoe case was one of the major trials before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. Da Silva was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to four counts of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty as a crime against humanity and one count of torture as a crime against humanity. The remaining charges against him (persecution, other inhumane acts) were withdrawn by the Prosecutor. 


Tel-Oren v. Libya: Hanoch Tel-Oren, et al., v. Libyan Arab Republic, et al.

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 Jun 1981, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack and which they considered guilty of torture.

The District Court did not assess the merits, as the Court held, most importantly, that the relevant provisions of international law did not provide the plaintiffs with the possibility to take legal action. In several parts of the opinion, the Court clearly stated its opinion that it is not up to the federal courts to judge on claims arising under international law, unless an international legal provision grants a private right to sue. A federal court should not be a substitute for an international tribunal and the judiciary should not interfere with foreign affairs and international relations, according to the Court.

Also, the Court held that too much time had passed since the attack to take the matter to court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed.  


<< first < prev   page 78 of 144   next > last >>