697 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 105 of
140
next >
last >>
Reinhold et al.: The Prosecutor v. Oscar Lorenzo Reinhold and others
Fundamentos de la sentencia, 18 Dec 2009, Federal Oral Tribunal of Neuquén, Argentina
R. v. UK: R (on the application of Smith) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and another
Judgment, 30 Jun 2010, Supreme Court, Great Britain (UK)
Mutua et al. v. UK: Ndiki Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Susan Ngondi v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Approved Judgment, 5 Oct 2012, The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain (UK)
The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this. In this phase of the proceedings, the British government basically argued that the events in Kenya happened too long ago to be considered on trial. The Court rejected this argument, stating that British law allowed Courts to let cases proceed which happened a long time ago. Moreover, the Court held that there were sufficient primary sources to establish what took place in the detention camps in Kenya and the UK Government’s involvement in this matter.
German Piracy Trial
Urteil, 19 Oct 2012, Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg), Germany
On 5 April 2010, ten Somalis attacked the Taipan, a container ship sailing under the German flag off the Horn of Africa. The Dutch naval forces arrested the Somalis and, on 10 June 2010, transferred them to Germany. The trial commenced on 22 November 2010, representing the country’s first piracy trial in 400 years.
On 19 October 2012, the Hamburg Regional Court found the Somalis guilty and handed down sentences ranging between two and seven years.
Public Prosecutor's Office v. Ahmad al-Y (Appeal)
Judgement, 6 Dec 2022, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
Ahmad al-Y. was accused of two crimes: the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity and participation in a terrorist organisation. The court finds that the accused fought in Syria alongside the terrorist organisation Ahrar al-Sham and he is therefore convicted of participation in a terrorist organisation.
Unlike the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal does not find the suspect guilty of the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity. The videos show the accused spitting towards the deceased person and putting his foot near a body, while he was celebrating a victory over soldiers of the Syrian Government. Although the actions of him and his fellow fighters are disrespectful and distasteful, the court finds that this conduct does not meet the threshold necessary for this crime. The conduct is not degrading or humiliating enough. The victims are not severely suffering and are not displayed as a trophy.
The accused is sentenced to five years and four months of imprisonment, which is lower than usual, since the case took unreasonably long.
<< first
< prev
page 105 of
140
next >
last >>
