730 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 113 of
146
next >
last >>
Habré: Hissène Habré v. Republic of Senegal
Judgment, 18 Nov 2010, Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa (ECOWAS), Nigeria
Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Residing in exile in Senegal, he was unsuccessfully brought before the Senegalese courts in 2000-2001 at which time the Supreme Court of Senegal confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the acts allegedly committed by Habré were not criminalised under domestic law. In response to an African Union mandate to prosecute Habré, Senegal amended its legislation to provide for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and acts of torture committed by foreign nationals outside of Senegalese territory.
Habré brought a complaint against Senegal before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa alleging that the new legislation breached his human rights, including the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law. The Court held, in a decision that has been criticised for lack of legal basis, that Senegal would violate the principle of non-retroactivity if its tried Habré in its domestic courts. Instead, international custom mandates that Senegal establish a special tribunal to try and prosecute Habté.
Glavaš: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Branimir Glavaš
Verdict, 29 Nov 2010, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Panel of the Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes committed during the Croatian war of independence (1991-1995).
Glavaš has always denied any wrongdoing and he protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged that the trial was based on “political, not legal statements.” Nevertheless, after several appeals, on 2 June 2010, the Croatian Supreme Court sentenced Glavaš to eight years’ imprisonment for the war crimes of murder and torture of civilians. Glavaš attempted to evade sitting out his sentence by fleeing to Bosnia, but to no avail: there, he was arrested as well and the Bosnian courts upheld the verdict issued by their Croatian colleagues.
Hategekimana: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana
Judgment and Sentence, 6 Dec 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania
Ildephonse Hategekimana was a lieutenant in the Rwandan Armed Forces and also the commander of the Ngoma military camp during the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994.
The Prosecutor of the ICTR charged Hategekimana with genocide, or, alternatively, complicity to commit genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity. The charges related to his role in the massacre of Tutsi refugees at Ngoma church and at Maison Généralice, as well as for his participation in the killings of several other Tutsis and the rape of Nura Sezirahiga. On 6 December 2010, he was convicted for genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama et al.: Nasser Al-Aulaqi, on his own behalf and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Plaintiff, v. Barack H. Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Robert M. Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Leon E. Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants.
Memorandum Opinion, 7 Dec 2010, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
The Al-Aulaqi case is significant as it marks in all probability the first time that an American citizen has been killed by U.S. forces outside the borders of the U.S., without any trial, indictment or due process. The case revolves around Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship who was a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and had gone into hiding in Yemen, from where he regularly published videos propagating the jihad. The U.S. Treasury Department had allegedly designated him for targeted killing. Therefore, his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, filed a complaint claiming that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA unlawfully authorised the targeted killing, and seeking an injunction prohibiting them from intentionally killing his son, except in case he did present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and when there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralise the threat. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights intervened with a memorandum supporting Al-Aulaqi senior’s complaint.
The Columbia District Court found that plaintiff Al-Aulaqi, the father, had neither legal standing in court for his claims, nor that was the claim justiciable under the Alien Tort Statute. And if this was not enough, the Court also ruled that the political question doctrine barred it from adjudicating the case. On 7 December 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s complaint was dismissed on those grounds, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on 30 September 2011.
Šljivančanin: The Prosecutor v. Veselin Šljivančanin
Review Judgement (Public), 8 Dec 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
Šljivančanin was in charge of a security force within the Yugoslav People’s Army that moved prisoners from the Vukovar hospital to Ovčara, where they were tortured and murdered. In the earlier phases of his trial, Šljivančanin was found guilty on counts of torture as a war crime and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Later, the Appeals Chamber extended his conviction to the count of murder as war crime and sentenced him to 17 years’ imprisonment. The reason behind this decision was a conversation between Šljivančanin and his superior which proved the former's intentions to contribute to the murdering of the prisoners.
In 2010, however, a new witness contacted the Defence team of Šljivančanin, expressing his intentions to testify about the conversation in question. According to his testimony, the conversation did not evidence that Šljivančanin had the required intention.
The Appeals Chamber accepted the testimony of the witness as constituting a new fact for the purposes of the trial and allowed the review motion.
After closely considering the testimony and the arguments brought by the Prosecution against the testimony, the Chamber concluded that the statements of the witness were credible. Accordingly, it ruled that the conviction on the count of murder had to be vacated and the sentence was reduced to 10 years of imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 113 of
146
next >
last >>