696 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 103 of
140
next >
last >>
Erdemović: The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović
Sentencing Judgement, 29 Nov 1996, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, as a crime against humanity.
In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Erdemović, Trial Chamber I balanced the relevant sentencing factors.
With respect to duress, Trial Chamber I found that duress may serve as a complete defence under strict conditions, including whether the accused did not have the duty to disobey and whether he had the moral choice to do so or to try to do so. In the present case, these conditions were not met.
Trial Chamber I considered that the crimes committed by Erdemović were of intrinsic gravity. However, it took into consideration a large number of mitigating circumstances, including Erdemović’s age, expression of remorse, guilty plea, co-operation with the Prosecution and the fact that he no longer constitutes a danger.
Trial Chamber I sentenced Erdemović to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Rasul v. Bush: Shafiq Rasul et al v. George W. Bush, President of the United States/Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah et al v. George W. Bush
Opinion, 28 Jun 2004, Supreme Court, United States
In this landmark case, fourteen Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, requesting judicial review of their indefinite detention without charges.
Revisiting the holding in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that US courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in the course of armed conflict and subsequently detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Rasul was found to differ from Eisentrager in the “plenary and exclusive jurisdiction” held by the US over Guantanamo; the Court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges from Guantanamo detainees under the terms of the general federal habeas statute.
Lekaj: Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor v. Anton Lekaj (aka "Pinđo" aka "Balt")
Indictment, 7 Jul 2005, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro
Anton Lekaj, born in 1980, was a member of the ‘Cipat’ group within the military police forces of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1999, there was an ongoing conflict between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo.
Between 12 and 15 of June 1999, Lekaj, together with other members of the KLA, detained 13 non-Albanian civilians and transferred them to premises in the Pastrik Hotel. The 13 civilians were beaten, tortured, sexually abused, and some of them were even killed.
Lekaj was arrested in August 2004 and charged with war crimes against civilians. He was subsequently tried in Serbia. On 18 September 2006, he was found guilty for his participation in the crimes and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Judgment, 20 Apr 2010, Supreme Court, The Netherlands
The accused, Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven, was suspected of involvement in smuggling arms to Liberia (through his Liberian-based timber factories) during the Second Liberian Civil War - in violation of UN arms trade bans - and accomodating/complicity in the numerous war crimes that were committed with these weapons. He was taken into custody by the Dutch police in 2005, and put on trial.
Although the Court of First Instance found him guilty of arms smuggling (but quashed the war crimes charges), the Court of Appeal later found that he could not be convicted for any of the charges due to lack of evidence. The prosecution appealed and ultimately the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred by not properly motivating its decision not to allow an examining judge to assess whether two anonymous witnesses - who were allegedly very close to Kouwenhoven and Charles Taylor, and therefore key to the prosecution's case - should be admitted as protected witnesses, could be provided a protected witness-status so as to testify in the case. The appeals judgment was declared null and void and the case was referred to another Court of Appeals.
The case is currently still before the Court of Appeal: due to the case being assessed anew on all facts and evidence, an enormous amount of requests relating to the admission of (new) evidence has been filed.
Hutchins III: United States of America v. Lawrence G. Hutchins III
Published Opinion of the Court, 22 Apr 2010, Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Washington D.C., United States
Lawrence G. Hutchins III was a U.S. Marine Sergeant and a squad leader of a unit conducting counterinsurgency operations. Together with seven other U.S. Marines, they were accused of having killed Iraqi war veteran Hashim Ibrahim Awad on 26 April 2006.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction due to lack of a fair trial when one of Hutchins’ primary attorneys departed shortly before the court-martial began. Hutchins was once more freed on appeal on 26 June 2013 when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out the convictions entered against him, after he has served half of his 11-year sentence. On 28 January 2014 the commanding general of the U.S. Marine Corps moved for third retrial “due to the seriousness of the charges and the amount of evidence that had been compiled through investigations.”
<< first
< prev
page 103 of
140
next >
last >>