skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: vincent brown k vincent bajinja

> Refine results with advanced case search

167 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 12 of 34   next > last >>

The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven

Judgment on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal of 21 April 2017, number 20/001906-10, 18 Dec 2018, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Netherlands

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for complicity in war crimes committed by Taylor’s regime and the supply of weapons. Kouwenhoven appealed, arguing that the amnesty scheme approved by Charles Taylor shortly before his resignation prevented him from being prosecuted. 

In a decision of 18 December 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld Kouwenhoven’s conviction, finding it did not have the competence to assess the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Liberian law and that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the amnesty scheme did not prevent the prosecution of Kouwenhoven due to the circumstances in which the scheme was introduced and the obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes. 


A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 1): A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) & X (FC) and another (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Opinions, 16 Dec 2004, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.


Pekez et al.: Prosecutor's Office Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mirko Pekez, Mirko Pekez and Milorad Savić

Verdict, 29 Sep 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mirko Pekez (son of Mile), Mirko Pekez (son of Špiro), and Milorad Savić were all born in Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which began in April 1992 and ended in November 1995, the three of them were members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (VRS). 

On 10 September 1992, members of the VRS took Bosnian civilians out of their homes in Ljoljići-Čerkazovići located in the municipality of Jajce (central Bosnia and Herzegovina), and subsequently brought them to the nearby village of Draganovac where they were lined up against the edge of an abyss before being shot. Mirko Pekez (son of Mile), Mirko Pekez (son of Špiro), and Milorad Savić were charged for their participation in the killing of 23 and the wounding of four of the Bosnian civilians. On 29 September 2008, the Appellate Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Pekez (son of Mile) guilty for the crimes, and ordered a retrial.  


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. 


Perišic: Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić

Judgment, 28 Feb 2013, International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

Momčilo Perišić was born on 22 May 1944 in Koštunići, Serbia. During the period August 1993 until December 1998, he was chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army (VJ). The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague started criminal proceedings against him. Perišić was found guilty of planning and executing an attack on Srebrenica, at the time of the attack an area considered a so-called “safe area”, and for the killings of thousands of Muslims living there. In addition, Perišić was also found guilty for killing seven people and injuring approximately 200 people in Zagreb on 2 and 3 May 1995 with the help of the Army of Serbian Krajina (SVK). Perišić appealed against the decision. On 28 February 2013, the ICTY acquitted Perišić and subsequently released him.


<< first < prev   page 12 of 34   next > last >>