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 85 of 144   next > last >>

Doe I et al. v. Qi et al.: Jane Doe I, et al. v. Liu Qi, et al.

Default Judgment, 8 Dec 2004, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States

The plaintiffs, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Helene Petit, Martin Larsson, Leeshai Lemish, and Roland Odar, all practitioners of Falun Gong, were beaten, sexually assaulted and tortured by police forces in the period before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

On 7 February 2002, the plaintiffs brought a claim against Liu Qi, who was the mayor of Beijing at that time. The plaintiffs accused him of failing to supervise and discipline the police officers who offended them. In addition, they claimed that Qi also formulated a policy that authorised such offences and incited police forces to violently repress the Falun Gong religious movement.

Qi did not reply or appear after he was served with the complaint. As a result, the plaintiffs filed a request for default judgment (a judgment issued as a result of defendant’s failure to respond). On 8 December 2004, the District Court entered a default judgment against Qi upholding only the claims of Doe I, Doe II, and Petit.


Correira: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Abilio Mendes Correira

Judgement, 9 Mar 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups operated throughout the territory. They were responsible for perpetrating a number of crimes against the civilian population, particularly those perceived to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Abilio Mendes Correia, was a member of the Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia group who in August 1999 came across a truck carrying a well-known leader of the pro-independence group Conselho Nacional da Resistencia Timorense (CNRT). Acting on orders, the Accused and other militia members proceeded to remove the victim from the truck in which he was travelling and then severely beat him. The beating was halted when the victim was taken away for questioning; He was never seen alive again.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. However, with credit for the time he had already served in pre-trial detention, he was released two days after the judgment.


Morreira: The Prosecutor v. Florindo Morreira

Judgement, 19 May 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. The Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups, including the Aitarak militia, perpetrated countless abuses against the civilian population and especially pro-independence supporters. One such incident occurred on 31 August 1999 at an Aitarak militia checkpoint where two individuals were searched and identified as being members of a pro-independence organisation. They were beaten to death.

The Accused, Florindo Morreira, was alleged by the Prosecution to have been involved in the beatings and actually stabbed one of the victims with a samurai sword. However, the two witnesses that were called provided unreliable and contradictory evidence. The Court therefore acquitted the Accused, finding that withdrawing the indictment alone was insufficient to guard against double jeopardy as the Accused could be indicted again by the Prosecutor in the future for the same conduct if new evidence comes to light. 


Perreira: The Prosecutor v. Francisco Perreira

Judgement, 27 Apr 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian armed forces and numerous militia groups in support of Indonesian autonomy perpetrated widespread abuses against the Timorese civilian population, targeting especially those suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

The Accused, Francisco Perreira, was a member of the Mahidi militia group who operated a detention camp where pro-independence supporters were routinely detained, beaten, and subject to harsh living conditions including lack of food, water and sleep. Perreira was convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for the persecution of four detainees at the camp, whom he had tortured or inflicted severe physical suffering upon.  He was further convicted of the attempted murder of another detainee who had succeeded in escaping. Perreira had pursued the victim with other militia members to a riverbank where, acting upon orders to kill, he stabbed the victim. However, his conduct was not the cause of death as the victim was also shot by another militia member. As a result, at sentencing, Perreira was only sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for both counts of crimes against humanity. 


Mugesera v. Canada: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Appellant, v. Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri and Marie-Grâce Hoho, Respondents

Joint reasons for judgment (on appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal), 28 Jun 2005, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada

Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.

After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.


<< first < prev   page 85 of 144   next > last >>