Search results

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001. Barhoumi challenged the District Court’s decision, arguing that the evidence upon which the decision was based do not prove that he was “part of” an al-Qaeda-associated organization.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Barhoumi, finding that the adduced evidence was sufficient to warrant his detention under the 2001 AUMF. Accordingly, the District Court’s decision was affirmed.

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.

The accused M.H. was a Croatian Serb who backed up the occupation of the village of Branjina (eastern Croatia) by the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) as part of paramilitary forces. As a member of the Territorial Defense (TO) in the village, he had absolute authority. The District Court of Osijek found him to be guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment in accordance with article 119 of the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia.

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. Pro-autonomy militia groups, as well as the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) perpetrated a number of abuses against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those individuals who were suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

In August 1999, Augusto Asameta Tavares was a member of the pro-autonomy Halilintar militia group who was ordered to burn down the houses in a village and murder the inhabitants. In particular, he was ordered, along with others, to locate and stab a known pro-independence supporter, Paulino Lopes Amarel. The order was carried out and the victim died. Tavares was convicted for the domestic crime of murder by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. The Panels did not accept the defence of duress, which required that the conduct was the result of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Although Tavares was forced to join the militia and was bound to follow orders, the Panels concluded that he could have left. Indeed, that he went along with the militia to the village and came armed with a knife demonstrated to the Panel that he shared the aim of furthering the militia’s criminal activity and contributed to the realisation of those aims.