697 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 111 of
140
next >
last >>
Alić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Šefik Alić
Second Instance Verdict, 20 Jan 2011, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Šefik Alić was born on 3 March 1968 in Dobro Selo in the municipality of Buzim, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alić was Assistant Commander for Security of the Hamza Battalion of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 5 August 1995, during the Oluja military operation, soldiers of both the Hamza Battalion and Tewfik Al Harbi captured four soldiers of the army of the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Even though the Hamza Battalion had to protect them, the four soldiers were physically and mentally abused, and Alić participated in the abuses. The four soldiers were subsequently killed by members of Tewfik Al Harbi. As Assistant Commander, Alić had a duty to punish soldiers that committed crimes under his command, but he failed to do so. On 20 January 2011, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Alić guilty of war crimes against prisoners of war and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.
Slough et al.: United States of America v. Paul A. Slough, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 22 Apr 2011, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
In September 2007, 14 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20 wounded by employees of Blackwater, a private security company hired by the US to protect its government employees. They stated that it was self-defence, but were charged with manslaughter.
They alleged they made statements under pressure (as they were threatened to be fired if they would not do so). Under US law, these statements are ‘compelled’ and can therefore not be used in criminal proceedings. As these statements appeared in the press, both the prosecution team and witnesses were influenced by them. Therefore, the Court ruled, the rights of the defendants have been inexcusably breached. It dismissed the charges against the defendants.
The Court of Appeals did not agree and stated that the District Court should have been more specific when it branded the evidence against the defendants as ‘tainted’. It held that, for example, witness statements should have been subjected to a part by part examination to determine which parts were tainted. These statements should not have been ‘thrown out’ entirely, according to the Court of Appeals.
Perišić: The Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić
Judgment (public with confidential annex c), 6 Sep 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
Momčilo Perišić was a high-level military officer in the Yugoslav Army, which provided assistance both through sending weapons and through paying the salaries of the officers of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that of the Serbian Krajina (SVK).
Three incidents were relevant for the purposes of his trial. The shelling and sniping in Sarajevo, the invasion of the town of Srebrenica, both perpetrated by the VRS, and the SVK's attacks in Zagreb.
The Chamber found Perišić guilty as aider and abettor to war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the incidents in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.
The Chamber found him not guilty for his failure to punish the acts of the VRS in Sarajevo and Srebrenica due to the lack of his effective control over the conduct of the VRS.
However, he was found guilty for the failure to punish the criminal behavior of the SVK, over the conduct of which he did possess effective control. Perišić was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment.
Silan et al. v. The Netherlands: Wisah Binti Silan et al. v. The State of The Netherlands (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Judgment (Court ruling), 14 Sep 2011, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
The District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch State acted unlawfully by executing a large amount of the male population in Rawagedeh without trial on 9 December 1947, during the Indonesian War for Independence. It required the Dutch State to award compensations to plaintiffs 1 to 7, but not to plaintiff 8 and the Foundation.
This was a landmark ruling, as it marked the first time that the Dutch government has been held responsible by a court for a committed massacre. On 9 December 2011, the Dutch government publicly apologised to Indonesia for the massacre through Tjeerd de Zwaan, the Dutch ambassador in Indonesia. None of the soldiers involved in the massacre have ever been prosecuted. Both sides have given different estimations regarding the amount of people killed, with the Netherlands stating that 150 people were killed, whereas the victims’ association puts this number as high as 431.
Munyakazi: The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi
Judgement, 28 Sep 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Yussuf Munyakazi was a landowner and farmer in Bugarama community, Rwanda. On 30 June 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR delivered its judgment on Munyakazi’s case. It found that Munyakazi had been a leader in the incidents that had taken place at Shangi parish on 29 April 1994 and Mibilizi parish on 30 April 1994 and that he was responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Tutsi civilians. As a result, the Chamber convicted him for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.
Both Munyakazi and the Prosecution appealed against the judgment. Munyakazi submitted eight grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to acquit him. The Prosecution presented three grounds against the Trial judgment. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of appeal, upheld Munyakazi’s convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and affirmed the sentence of 25 years of imprisonment imposed upon him.
<< first
< prev
page 111 of
140
next >
last >>