skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: targeted killings public committee government israel

> Refine results with advanced case search

517 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 11 of 104   next > last >>

Mau: The Public Prosecutor v. Miguel Mau

Judgement, 23 Feb 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until East Timorese independence in 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups promoted Indonesian autonomy through violent means.

The Accused was forced to join the Laksaur militia group in 1999 and, in the course of his membership, perpetrated a number of crimes against supporters of East Timorese independence. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted and sentenced the Accused to 9 years’ imprisonment for the stabbing to death by machete of three victims, the beating of numerous villagers, and the enforced disappearance of another victim who was wounded, taken out to a forest and left there. At sentencing, the Court took into consideration the frailty and sickness of the Accused who was by now 55 years old, his expression of regret at the crimes, and his having pleaded guilty. It also took into consideration the brutality of the crimes and the Accused’s apparent lack of humanity when committing them.


Gusmao: The Public Prosecutor v. Joanico Gusmao

Judgement, 14 Apr 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 despite the will of the Timorese to gain independence. The Indonesian Armed Forces, together with a number of militia groups, carried out a nationwide campaign intended to terrorise and punish independence supporters.

The Accused was a member of the Laksaur militia group who had perpetrated widespread and systematic attacks against the Timorese people. The Accused was charged with the murder of a known independence supporter, whom he murdered by stabbing in the back with his sword during an attack on the village in which the victim lived. The Accused plead guilty and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment by the Court for the offense of murder as a crime against humanity. 


Simón et al.: Julio Simón et al. v. Public Prosecutor

Corte Suprema: Fallo anulando las leyes de amnistia, 14 Jun 2005, Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (Supreme Court), Argentina, Argentina

Julio Simón was a member of the Argentinean Federal Police during the military dictatorship of 1976-1983 and had been charged with kidnapping, torture, and forced disappearance of persons. Julio Simón argued as his defence that he benefited of immunity from prosecution under the Amnesty Laws of 1986-1987.

In 2001 a lower court had declared the Amnesty Laws unconstitutional. After successive appeals the issue came before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Amnesty Laws were unconstitutional and void for several reasons. First, since the adoption of the Amnesty Laws, international human rights law developed principles that prohibited states from making laws aimed at avoiding the investigation of crimes against humanity and the prosecution of the responsible people. By incorporating the ACHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into the Constitution, Argentina assumed the duty to prosecute crimes against humanity under international law. Because the Amnesty Laws were designed to leave serious human rights violations unpunished, they violated these treaties and the Constitution of Argentina. Moreover, in the Barrios Altos v. Peru case the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that states should not establish any measures that would prevent the  investigation and prosecution of serious human rights violations.


Van Anraat: Public Prosecutor v. Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat

Sentence, 23 Dec 2005, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

Frans Cornelis Adrianus 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.

The present case before the District Court of The Hague was brought by the Dutch Prosecutor against Van Anraat, a chemicals dealer who sold thiodiglycol to Saddam Hussein’s regime, which was used in the production of mustard gas. He was acquitted of the charge of complicity to genocide because it was not proven that at the time Van Anraat knew that the chemical would be used for the destruction of the Kurdish population. He was, however, convicted of complicity in war crimes and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.


Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven

Judgment, 7 Jun 2006, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. The District Court acquitted Kouwenhoven of war crimes in first instance, stating that the link between him and those who actually committed the crimes was insufficiently substantiated. However, Kouwenhoven was convicted for his involvement in illegally supplying Taylor with weapons. According to the Court there was sufficient evidence that ships, owned by the OTC, within which Kouwenhoven held a prominent position, shipped weapons into the port of Buchanan, which was managed by OTC. These acts, the Court reasoned, did not only violate Dutch laws but also the international legal order. Given the serious consequences of supplying the Taylor regime with weapons, Kouwenhoven was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment: the maximum sentence. 


<< first < prev   page 11 of 104   next > last >>