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 96 of 144   next > last >>

Trbic: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Milorad Trbic

First Instance Verdict, 16 Oct 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Milorad Trbic was a deputy chief of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of the Republika Srpska. He participated in the genocide of Bosniak men in Srebrenica in July 1995 by. He did this by, among other things, firing automatic rifles at them during executions, and supervising and coordinating the detention and execution of Bosniak men at various sites in the area around the city of Zvornik.

Milorad Trbic was first indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). On 27 April 2007, the case was referred the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further processing, pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, taking into consideration the gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused, and the standard of procedure in the country to where the case is referred. 

On 16 October 2009, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Trbic guilty of genocide committed in the Srebrenica area in July 1995, through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE). For criminal responsibility to arise via participation in a JCE there had to be a consistent and core group of actors with a common plan or purpose to commit a crime, with the accused to both intend and participate in the commission of that crime. The Court held that this was the case with Milorad Trbic. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. 


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

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1 Jun 2010, Supreme Court, 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.

The petitioners, all 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.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.

By the present decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals: the FSIA is not applicable to individuals so Samantar does not enjoy immunity from the present proceedings by virtue of it. Consequently, proceedings against him can continue. 


Ríos Montt: Rigoberta Menchu et al. v Ríos Montt et al.

Summary of Situation and Cases, 20 May 2013, Constitutional Court of Guatemala, Tribunal Primero A, Guatemala

General Efraín Ríos Montt was a former head of state of Guatemala.

In 2007, Montt was elected for a seat in the Congress. In 2012, his term of office as a member of the Congress came to an end. As a result, his immunity (heads of states are given protection from being suit without their consent) was lifted. Complaints were brought against Ríos Montt for crimes that resulted in the deaths of 1,771 indigenous Ixil people during his 17-month rule.

On 10 May 2013, Ríos Montt was found guilty of crimes committed against the indigenous Mayan population between 1960 and 1996 and was sentenced to 50 years in prison. On 20 May 2013, Guatemala’s Constitutional Court annulled the decision and set back the trial to the proceedings of 19 April 2013.

Ríos Montt is the first former head of state to be convicted of genocide by a court in his own country.


Judgment in the Case of Salih Mustafa

Judgment, 16 Dec 2022, Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Netherlands

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.


Johnson v. Eisentrager: Johnson et al. v. Eisentrager et al.

Judgment, 5 Jun 1950, Supreme Court, United States

On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.

The twenty one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, that is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia reversed the decision. In the present decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal to hold that foreign enemy nationals, not resident in the United States, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus


<< first < prev   page 96 of 144   next > last >>