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 95 of 144   next > last >>

Delić: Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić (TC)

Judgment (public), 15 Sep 2008, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands

In 1992, the so-called Mujahedin forces joined the military struggle of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Serbian forces. During three incidents between 1993 and 1995, the Mujahedin forces maltreated and killed both civilians and soldiers of the adversaries. 

Trial Chamber I found that these acts amounted to war crimes in the meaning of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute. 

When considering whether Rasim Delić could be held responsible for failing to prevent and punish these crimes, the Chamber found that he was guilty only with respect to the cruel treatment of captured Serb soldiers during the Livade incident. It found Delić not guilty with respect to the incident of Bikoši due to the lack of superior-subordinate relationship between those who committed the crimes and Delic. Responsibility for the last incident – in Kesten – was also rejected due to Delić's lack of reason to know that the crimes were about to be committed. 

Delić received a sentence of three years of imprisonment.


Al Bihani: Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani, Appellant, v. Barack Obama, President of the United States, et al., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 5 Jan 2010, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit. Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Al Bihani’s appeal.


Kiobel v. Shell: Esther Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.

Decision, 17 Sep 2010, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Unites States of America, United States

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and development of oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.

The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages. In 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the charges against the defendants for extrajudicial killing and violations of the right to life, security and association. On appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide jurisdiction over claims for violations of international law committed by corporations and not individual persons. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants could not continue and all charges are to be dismissed.    


Doe I et al. v. UNOCAL et al.: John Doe I et al. v. UNOCAL Corp. et al.

Ruling on UNOCAL Defendants' Motion for Judgment, 14 Sep 2004, Superior Court of California, Country of Los Angeles, United States

In 1979, fourteen Burmese villagers filed a complaint against the oil company UNOCAL. They claimed that they suffered abuses including torture and rape during the construction of the Yadana Pipeline. UNOCAL allegedly assisted in the abuses perpetrated by the military government in Rangoon.

The Burmese villagers based their claim on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows US courts to decide cases in respect of foreign nationals for crimes that occurred outside of the US.

In the particular decision, the Superior Court held that even though one of the theories of the Burmese villagers was refused, the case was not dismissed and as a result, they were allowed to proceed with their further theories. On 14 September 2004, the defendants’ motion for judgment was denied.


Palija: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Jadranko Palija

Second instance verdict, 24 Apr 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Jadranko Palija, a former member of the Serbian army, was accused of having committed war crimes against civilians and crimes against humanity during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The indictment against him accused him of participation in 19 murders and some counts of intimidation and rape committed against Bosniak and Croatian civilians. On 28 November 2007, Palija was found guilty on all charges by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He appealed against his conviction, but this did not help him: on 24 April 2008, the Appellate Panel of the Court ruled that the Trial Panel had been correct in both its analysis of the facts and the application of the law. Therefore, the conviction and prison sentence were both confirmed.


<< first < prev   page 95 of 144   next > last >>