skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: r khyam

> Refine results with advanced case search

156 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 11 of 32   next > last >>

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.


G.

Order of the Second Senate of 24 June 2003, 24 Jun 2003, Bundesverfassungsgericht / Federal Constitution Court, Germany

The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.

On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.

The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.


Manson v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court: Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) (Claimant) v. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court (First Defendant) and Carmarthen Justices (Second Defendant)

Judgement, 15 Oct 2003, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Great Britain (UK)

In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.


Physicians for Human Rights et al v. Prime Minister of Israel et al.: Physicians for Human Rights and others v. Prime Minister of Israel and others & Gisha Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement and others v. Minister of Defence

Judgment, 19 Jan 2009, The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, Israel

When Hamas, a Palestinian armed resistance group, came into power in Gaza, southern Israel was increasingly subject to heavy missile attacks. On 27 December 2008, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) began a large-scale military operation that Israel initiated in the Gaza Strip in order to stop the shooting of mortars. During that operation, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”, the IDF entered the Gaza Strip and attacked targets used by Hamas. In January 2009, two organisations filed a complaint against Israel and claimed that during the operation, the IDF did not protect medical centres and personnel, did not help with the transfer of wounded people, and did not supply electricity to the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Supreme Court found that Israel was acting reasonably and had not violated any international rules.


Corrie v. Israel: Estate of the Late Rachel Corrie et al. v. The State of Israel - Ministry of Defense

Judgment, 28 Aug 2012, District Court of Haifa, Israel

On 16 March 2003 American Rachel Corrie, together with other International Solidarity Movement members, protested in the "Philadelphi Corridor" in the Rafiah area of the Gaza Strip against the demolition of Palestinian houses in the area. Two bulldozers and an Israel Defense Force (IDF) tank were present. When one of the bulldozers was driving towards a house in order to demolish it, Rachel stood in front of it to protect it and the inhabitants, meanwhile climbing the growing pile of dirt that was formed in front of the bulldozer. At a certain moment she slipped, fell and got stuck under the dirt and the bulldozer. After her fellow protesters made the bulldozer's operator aware of the situation, she was removed from underneath and taken to the hospital, where she died. 

Rachel's parents filed a lawsuit against Israel and the IDF for killing or negligently causing the death of their daughter. 

The Haifa District Court dismissed their claims, stating that the bulldozer's operator had never intended to kill Rachel and had also not been able to see her due to the "blind spot" in front of the bulldozer blade. Furthermore, it found, Rachel had taken the risk of entering the closed-off area and chose to climb the pile of dirt, thus putting herself in the dangerous situation. The Court concluded that she "was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity""; therefore, "the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action".


<< first < prev   page 11 of 32   next > last >>