683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 102 of
137
next >
last >>
Van Anraat: Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat. v. The Netherlands
Decision as to Admissibility, 6 Jul 2010, European Court of Human Rights, France
Frans van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer. Van Anraat was convicted by the District Court of The Hague as accessory to war crimes committed by Hussein and his men. His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal of The Hague and the Supreme Court of The Netherlands. He was sentenced to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
The present decision is the result of Van Anraat's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts to try his case. His application was rejected as the European Court of Human Rights found, notably, that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in warfare was a crime under customary international law at the time the applicant supplied thiodiglycol to Iraq and he could therefore rightly be convicted of violations of this custom of war.
Mousa v. USA: Ali Zaki Mousa and others, claimants, v. Secretary of State for Defence, defendant, and Legal Services Commission, interested party
Judgment, 16 Jul 2010, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)
This case marks the beginning in a series of proceedings before the British courts with regard to the (existence of a) duty to investigate alleged widespread torture and abuse of Iraqis by British troops during Iraq’s occupation, lasting from 2003 until 2008. The claimant in Mousa v. UK, Ali Zaki Mousa, represents about 100 Iraqis – with the possible addition of 100 more after intervention – who were allegedly tortured or otherwise ill-treated during their detention at British military bases in Iraq, often without being charged (many of them were allegedly released after a period of time without any information on the reasons for either their detention or release). The claimants asked the High Court of Justice to order the Secretary of State for Defence to start investigations into the alleged misconduct. The Court agreed with him, finding that the current investigating bodies were too much intertwined with the army itself and did not constitute independent bodies of judicial review, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, the Secretary of State was ordered to initiate proper investigations.
Hamdan: Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. United States of America
On Petition for Review from the United States Court of Military Commission Review, 16 Oct 2012, Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, United States
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Initial attempts to make him stand trial for crimes of conspiracy before a United States military commission were ultimately unsuccessful as the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that trial before such a commission would be unlawful. In response, Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act on the basis of which Hamdan was newly charged for counts of conspiracy and material support for terrorism. He was tried and convicted by a military commission for material support for terrorism and sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment, which he concluded in his native Yemen in 2008.
The present decision is the result of his appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated Hamdan’s conviction on the grounds that material support for terrorism was not a war crime under international law prior to 2001 at the time of Hamdan’s relevant conduct, therefore the military commission could not try and convict him on this basis.
V15: The Prosecutor v. V15
Judgment, 10 Jan 2014, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
In October 2012 a group of Somali pirates boarded the Iranian dhow "Mohsen" and took the Iranian and Pakistani crewmembers hostage. They were noted by Dutch navy vessel HNLMS Rotterdam (part of NATO's Ocean Shield anti-piracy operation). When Navy marines approached the ship in inflatable boats (RHIBs) they came under fire from both the Mohsen and ashore. The Rotterdam responded, causing the Mohsen to catch fire, after which it sank. 25 people were rescued out of the water, while at least one pirate died during the exchange of fire.
Of the 25 rescued people, at least four were accused of piracy. They were put on separate trials in the Netherlands and charged with piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter.
In the current case, accused V15 was ultimately acquitted of the piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter charges due to a significant lack of evidence. However, since it was clear that armed violence against the Navy personnel had occurred and taking into consideration that V15 did carry a weapon and had cooperated with the shooters, he was found guilty of complicity in the use of (armed) violence against persons aboard a ship. Considering the grave nature of shooting at unprotected persons in inflatable boats an aggravating factor and weighing this against the harsh living conditions in Somalia and the dire personal situation of V15, the Court sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment.
Abu Gaith: United States of America v. Sulaiman Abu Gaiyth
Jury verdict, 26 Mar 2014, District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith (49), a Kuwaiti Islamist, was considered an official Al-Qaeda spokesman. He is married to one of Osama bin Laden's daughters. After the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, he praised the attacks in a series of impassioned videotaped messages and promised more attacks to follow, threatening with reprisals for the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan, saying, "Americans should know, the storm of the planes will not stop... There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live".
Initially living in Afghanistan, he supposedly fled the country in 2002 and went to Iran, where he lived under house arrest until 2013, when he left for Turkey. Turkey intended to deport him to Kuwait, but as he passed Jordan, he was caught by the Jordanian authorities and extradited to the US. Here he was put on trial for terrorism charges (conspiracy to kill Americans, and providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to do so). He pleaded not guilty, but the jury disagreed: on 26 March 2014, he was found guilty of all charges. The sentencing judgment is expectedly due on 8 September 2014.
<< first
< prev
page 102 of
137
next >
last >>