skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: mothers srebrenica netherlands & un

> Refine results with advanced case search

358 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 12 of 72   next > last >>

Mpambara: Public Prosecutor v. Joseph Mpambara

Judgment, 7 Jul 2011, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands

Between April and July 1994, as much as ten percent of the entire Rwandan civilian population (75 percent of all Tutsis) was murdered in an ethnic conflict in which the Hutus sought to eliminate the Tutsis. At the same time, an armed conflict was fought between the Rwandan government army (FAR) and the armed forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The RPF were a rebel army primarily composed of descendants of Rwandan Tutsi who fled from Rwanda in preceding years.

The accused, Joseph Mpambara, fled Rwanda for the Netherlands. He was arrested and brought before the Dutch courts on charges of war crimes, torture and genocide. While the Dutch courts deemed themselves without jurisdiction for genocide, the District Court of The Hague did convict Mpambara for torture.

The Court of Appeal also convicted him for war crimes - inter alia for his participation in a massacre against thousands of refugees in a church - and increased his 20 years' prison sentence to life imprisonment.


Prosecutor v. Imane B. et al. : Prosecutor v. Imane B. et al.

Judgment, 10 Dec 2015, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

In the ‘Context’ case, a large terrorism case in the Netherlands, nine individuals were found guilty of various terrorism offences, ranging from online incitement to the recruitment of individuals to travel to Syria. This case arose out of investigations into the flow of foreign fighters from the Netherlands – namely people heading to Syria in order to join various terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Nusra. The prosecution successfully argued that an organisation existed in the Netherlands that aimed at recruiting other people to support terrorist groups in Syria and to travel to join the fighting. The case also looked into the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and its role in recruiting individuals.

The nine accused, including several individuals who had travelled to Syria, faced charges concerning incitement to join terrorist groups, the dissemination of inciting materials, the recruitment of people to travel to Syria, the participation in training to commit terrorist crimes, participation in a criminal and terrorist organisation, and other charges relating to inciting hate and defamation. The defendants were all convicted of differing offences and their sentences ranged from seven days’ to six years’ imprisonment. 


Da Costa: The Prosecutor v. Agustinho da Costa

Judgement, 11 Oct 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those believed to be independence supporters. These crimes intensified in the wake of the referendum conducted in August 1999 in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence.

It was in the wake of this referendum that members of the Team Pancasila Atsabe militia, including the Accused Agustinho Da Costa, were ordered to locate and kill a known independence supporter who was working for the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). Their initial search being unsuccessful, they located the victim on the following day and proceeded to beat him with rocks and fire multiple shots until he died. His daughter witnesses the entire incident.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Da Costa for his role in the murder and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The Panel was not persuaded by Da Costa’s line of defence that held that he was acting under duress, as he could have resisted joining the militia and could have escaped up until the moment of the attack.


Martins & Goncalves: The Prosecutor v. Anastacio Martins and Domingos Goncalves

Judgement, 13 Nov 2003, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and some 24 local militia groups in favour of Indonesian autonomy targeted the civilian population, particularly those suspected of being independence supporters. In September 1999, a referendum was held in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence. As a result of this vote, members of the Besih Merah Putih (BMP) militia group launched a renewed campaign against independence supporters. In the course of this campaign, a number of villages were attacked, houses burnt down and individuals murdered or deported to West Timor.

Anastacio Martins and Domingos Goncalves were BMP members who were convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for their role in these attacks. Martins was convicted for two counts of murder as a crime against humanity and sentenced to 11 years 6 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty; Goncalves was convicted for one count of murder and one count of deportation as crimes against humanity and received a 15-year sentence. The judgment is particularly noteworthy because the Special Panels disagreed with an earlier Court of Appeal decision and held that the applicable law in 1999 and therefore the law to be applied by the Panels was Indonesian, and not Portuguese. 


Ould Dah: Ely Ould Dah

, 7 Jan 2005, Cour d'assises du Gard, France


<< first < prev   page 12 of 72   next > last >>