skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: vincent brown k vincent bajinja

> Refine results with advanced case search

167 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 11 of 34   next > last >>

Pedro: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Francisco Pedro

Judgement, 14 Apr 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor form 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and a number of militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign of abuse against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Francisco Pedro, was a member of the Firmi Merah Putih (FIRMI) militia group. On 15 September 1999, he and other militia members abducted three suspected independence supporters from their homes, bundled them into a taxi and drove them to a dark clearing where they were to be killed. The Accused stabbed two of the victims, who died, whilst a third succeeded in escaping. The Accused on another event also acted as a guard at a FIRMI commander’s home where a number of independence supporters were detained and repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten. For his involvement, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder and other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. 


Ljubinac: The Prosecutor v. Radisav Ljubinac

Verdict, 25 Apr 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the armed conflict that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serb forces including the Army of the Republika Srpska (RS), the Police and paramilitary forces perpetrated attacks against the civilian population in the Rogatica municipality by detaining, murdering, raping and abusing persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity. The Accused, Radisav Ljubinac, was a member of the RS living in Rogatica in 1995.

By a judgment of 25 April 2007, Section I of the War Crimes Chamber in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity. The Court found that the Accused acted as the driver transferring women, children and a small number of remaining adult men from the villages and settlements in Seljani to the camp in Rogatica and from then on, transferring the women and children to Hreša. He also drove a group of civilians, including children, to the village of Duljevac whereupon they were used as human shields in front of the Serb soldiers. The Court also found that on a number of occassions, the Accused kicked and punched the detained civilians at the Rasadnik camp. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. 


Ljubinac: The Prosecutor v. Radisav Ljubinac

Verdict, 4 Oct 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the armed conflict that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serb forces including the Army of the Republika Srpska (RS), the police and paramilitary forces perpetrated attacks against the civilian population in the Rogatica municipality by detaining, murdering, raping and abusing persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity. The Accused, Radisav Ljubinac, was a member of the RS living in Rogatica in 1995.

By a judgment of 25 April 2007, Section I of the War Crimes Chamber in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for his role in the forcible transfer of civilians and their maltreatment at the Rasadnik camp in Rogatica. By the present verdict, the Appellate Panel of the War Crimes Chamber confirmed the verdict of Section I and dismissed the appeals of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Defence. It amended the verdict only so far as to reflect Section I’s failure to dismiss a charge, which the Prosecutor had dropped during the trial. 


Taylor: The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor

Appeals Judgment, 26 Sep 2013, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Appeals Chamber), Sierra Leone

In April 2012, Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was found guilty of providing arms, financial and moral support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council rebel forces. With the aim of destabilizing the country and gaining access to the natural resources of Sierra Leone (mainly diamonds), he supported the RUF in the preparation of military actions in Sierra Leone (in the districts of Bo, Kono, Kenema, Bombali, Kailahun, Freetown). During the military actions, civilians were killed, beaten, terrorised, raped, and abducted. Children were also abducted and involved in the military actions.

Charles Taylor was sentenced to fifty years of imprisonment.

On 26 September 2013, the Appeals Chamber of the SCSL confirmed that Charles Taylor assisted and planned numerous crimes committed during the Sierra Leone's civil war by the RUF and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council rebel forces. The Appeals Chamber also confirmed the fifty years’ sentence. 


R. v. Hamdan: Regina v. Othman Ayed Hamdan

Oral Reasons for Judgment, 22 Sep 2017, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Canada

Palestinian refugee Othman Ayed Hamdan was charged after posting on various Facebook accounts and pages regarding Middle East politics, particularly supporting ISIS presence in Iraq and Syria. He believed he was carrying out jihad, meaning struggle. The charges arose from 85 posts from Facebook accounts and pages. To prove the elements of the crime, the Crown had to prove two things: 1) that posts were likely to incite a reader to commit a terrorist act and 2) that Hamdan intended to incite his audience.

The Court determined that a reasonable person would find only one of the posts to be an active inducement to commit a terrorist act; however, the court also determined that the Crown could not prove Hamdan intended to induce a reader beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Court did not find Hamdan’s testimony on his intent credible, the court acquitted him because there was reasonable doubt.


<< first < prev   page 11 of 34   next > last >>