skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: rigoberta menchu rios montt 'guatemala genocide case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

662 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 100 of 133   next > last >>

Tadić: The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić a/k/a “Dule”

Opinion and Judgment in First Instance, 7 May 1997, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Trial Chamber II held that the elements required for the establishment of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions have not been met. Particularly, the Muslim victims were not in the hands of the party to the conflict of which they were not nationals, since the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were not an organ or agent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, the victims could not be seen as “protected persons” within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; as such, Trial Chamber II acquitted Tadić of all charges of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (persecutions and inhumane acts) and of violations of the laws or customs of war (cruel treatment). 


Legality of the GSS’ interrogation methods: Judgment Concerning the Legality of the GSS' Interrogation Methods

Judgment, 6 Sep 1999, Supreme Court of Israel, Israel

During the 1990s, several complaints of unlawful physical interrogation methods by the General Security Service reached the Israeli Supreme Court. In 1999, it assessed the essential question posed in most of these complaints: was the GSS even allowed to conduct interrogations and if so, did their interrogation methods fall within the scope of torture as prohibited by Israeli and international law. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and deduced from a general provision in Israeli law the GSS’ authority to interrogate. However, the Court also stated that the GSS was not authorised to use most of the interrogation methods presented to the Court. These included long sleep deprivation, shaking suspects, covering suspects’ heads, and having them crouch on their toes for five minutes intervals. The GSS had argued that the ‘necessity’ defense provided sufficient authorisation to use these interrogations, as information obtained from interrogation might prevent terrorist attacks. The Court did not agree, stating that while the necessity defense might be used by an individual investigator during criminal proceedings, it cannot provide authorisation prior to using the prohibited interrogation methods.    


Sikirica et al.: The Prosecutor v. Duško Sikirica, Damir Došen, and Dragan Kolundžija

Sentencing Judgement , 13 Nov 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber, The Netherlands

The case against Duško Sikirica, Damir Došen and Dragan Kolundžija concerned the crimes committed against the Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb detainees of the Keraterm camp in the outskirts of the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The detainees were subjected to inhumane living conditions, beatings, and mistreatments. In the summer of 1992, Sikirica was the Commander of Security of the camp, Došen, and Kolundžija were both shift leaders. Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija pleaded guilty to persecution as a crime against humanity, and the Trial Chamber found them guilty accordingly.

In order to determine the appropriate sentences, the Trial Chamber balanced several sentencing factors. The Trial Chamber considered that the positions of Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija were of a limited authority and subsequently, it only attached a limited amount of aggravation to them. Sikirica’s failure of his duty to prevent outsiders from mistreating the detainees was considered a further aggravating factor.

Among the mitigating circumstances, the Trial Chamber took into consideration Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija’s guilty pleas and expressions of remorse. Došen’s assistance to, and Kolundžija’s favourable treatment of some detainees were additional mitigating factors.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Sikirica to 15 years, Došen to 5 years, and Kolundžija to 3 years of imprisonment.


Gonsalves et al.: The General Prosecutor of the Democratic Republic of East Timor v. Paulo Gonsalves, Marcelino Leto Bili Purificasao and Rosalino Pires

Indictment, 11 Jun 2002, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor

On 12 June 2002, the Special Panel for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court, East Timor, issued an indictment against Paulo Gonsalves, Marcelino Leto Bili Purificasao and Rosalino Pires, respectively the commander, deputy commander, and a member of the Halilintar Merah Putih militia group based in the subdistrict of Atabae in East Timor. According to the allegations, several victims alleged to be supporters of East Timor’s independence from Indonesia were detained, beaten, and raped by the three members of Halilintar Merah Putih in the period between February and September 1999. In that period, numerous pro-Indonesian militia groups operated throughout East Timor attacking pro-independence supporters with the goal to gain autonomy within Indonesia.


El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. The United States of America

Opinion, 14 Mar 2003, United States Court of Federal Claims, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In March 2003, the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaints as non-justiciable based on the ‘political question doctrine’ (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions). Accordingly, the Court found that it did not have jurisdiction, even if the complaints raised issues under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, El-Shifa’s complaints were dismissed.


<< first < prev   page 100 of 133   next > last >>