608 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 117 of
122
next >
last >>
Abtan et al. v. Prince et al.: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al. v. Prince et al.
Order, 6 Jan 2010, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, United States
The case was filed by 22 injured Iraqi nationals and the families of eight individuals who died in the Nisoor Square shooting in Bagdad on 16 September 2007. The complaint was brought against the private security contractor Blackwater (now known as “Academic LLC”) and its founder Erik Prince.
On 1 January 2010, the Iraqi nationals agreed to sign a settlement agreement with Blackwater and Erik Prince, and to withdraw their complaint. The details of the agreement were not made available to the public.
Krasniqi et al.: The Prosecutor v. Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi, Fatmir Limaj and Naser Shala
Judgment, 2 May 2012, District Court of Pristina, Kosovo
In early 1998, escalating ethnic tensions and violence led to the break out of an armed conflict in Kosovo between Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Serbian and Albanian civilians were perceived as non-cooperative by the KLA and were subsequently targeted for intimidation, imprisonment, violence and murder. A number of Serbian military prisoners as well as Albanian civilian prisoners were detained at the Klecka detention centre by the KLA in inhumane conditions, exposed to cold, without adequate sanitation or proper nutrition. Prisoners were frequently beaten and a number amongst them were executed and their bodies buried in mass graves nearby.
Fatmir Limaj, Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi and Naser Shala were all KLA members; Limaj was the commander of the 121st Brigade. They were indicted by the Special Prosecutor for war crimes and stood trial before the District Court of Pristina, operating under European Union supervision in Kosovo. All Accused were acquitted by the District Court.
On appeal however, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of all accused and held that key evidence from Limaj’s deputy who had died in Germany the previous year would be admissible in the new trial.
Mutua et al. v. UK: Ndiki Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Susan Ngondi v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Approved Judgment, 5 Oct 2012, The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain (UK)
The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this. In this phase of the proceedings, the British government basically argued that the events in Kenya happened too long ago to be considered on trial. The Court rejected this argument, stating that British law allowed Courts to let cases proceed which happened a long time ago. Moreover, the Court held that there were sufficient primary sources to establish what took place in the detention camps in Kenya and the UK Government’s involvement in this matter.
Yamashita: Yamashita v. Styer
Judgment, 4 Feb 1946, Supreme Court, United States
At the end of the Second World War, Tomoyuki Yamashita was a Commander in the Japanese Army serving in the Philippines. His troops were allegedly responsible for killing, torturing and raping thousands of civilians.
On 3 September 1945, Yamashita surrendered to the United States army. A US military commission tried him for violations of the laws of war. Yamashita was charged with having failed to perform his duties as an army commander to control the operations of his troops, thus “permitting them to commit” atrocities. He was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
Yamashita appealed at the US Supreme Court, because the military commission had lacked many procedural and evidential protections. The Supreme Court denied this appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that even if Yamashita did not know about the crimes committed by his subordinates, because of his position as a superior, he should have known. Yamashita was executed on 23 February 1946.
The outcome of this case has been much debated and criticised, because of the claimed lack of evidence and the ‘should have known’ criteria as described by the Supreme Court.
Correira: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Abilio Mendes Correira
Judgement, 9 Mar 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups operated throughout the territory. They were responsible for perpetrating a number of crimes against the civilian population, particularly those perceived to be independence supporters.
The Accused, Abilio Mendes Correia, was a member of the Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia group who in August 1999 came across a truck carrying a well-known leader of the pro-independence group Conselho Nacional da Resistencia Timorense (CNRT). Acting on orders, the Accused and other militia members proceeded to remove the victim from the truck in which he was travelling and then severely beat him. The beating was halted when the victim was taken away for questioning; He was never seen alive again.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. However, with credit for the time he had already served in pre-trial detention, he was released two days after the judgment.
<< first
< prev
page 117 of
122
next >
last >>