Search results

On 1 December 2014 Ms. Shukri F., a young Dutch woman, was acquitted on two charges by the District Court of The Hague. She was charged with 1) recruiting people to join the armed struggle in Syria, and; 2) incitement to commit terrorist crimes and dissemination of and collecting inciting material. Although the Court acquitted her, the Prosecutor appealed. 

The defendant was allegedly active in spreading the virtues of Islamic orthodoxy in multiple ways. First, she used social media and gave lectures about Islam. Second, she encouraged multiple women (some underage) to marry and to depart to Syria. Third, she married a man who she supported in his wish to go to Syria. After he had left for Syria she divorced him and married another man, Maher H., who she also encouraged to depart to Syria.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it could not establish that the defendant recruited people to join the armed struggle in Syria. It could establish, however, that 2 videos she had posted on Twitter amounted to the dissemination of inciting materials. For that reason she was sentenced to a suspended imprisonment term of 6 months and a probation period of 2 years.

Palestinian refugee Othman Ayed Hamdan was charged after posting on various Facebook accounts and pages regarding Middle East politics, particularly supporting ISIS presence in Iraq and Syria. He believed he was carrying out jihad, meaning struggle. The charges arose from 85 posts from Facebook accounts and pages. To prove the elements of the crime, the Crown had to prove two things: 1) that posts were likely to incite a reader to commit a terrorist act and 2) that Hamdan intended to incite his audience.

The Court determined that a reasonable person would find only one of the posts to be an active inducement to commit a terrorist act; however, the court also determined that the Crown could not prove Hamdan intended to induce a reader beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Court did not find Hamdan’s testimony on his intent credible, the court acquitted him because there was reasonable doubt.

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

By the present decision, the High Court of Justice quashed the arrest warrant on the grounds that Pinochet enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings under the 1978 State Immunity Act. However, the Court delayed the effect of the quashing until such time as the matter had been decided on appeal to the House of Lords. 

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

The present decision of 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords held that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity in respect of charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture where such conduct was committed after 8 December 1988, the date upon which the 1984 Torture Convention entered into force in the UK. This temporal qualification significantly limited the charges for which Pinochet can be extradited to Spain as the majority of the conduct alleged was either not an extraditable offence or was committed prior to this date. Under English law, it was now for the Home Secretary, then Jack Straw, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed with extradition. 

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The prosecutor argued that the trial judge should have stepped back from the case, as the prosecutor had accused him of being biased. Also, the prosecutor held that several charges should not have been dismissed and that the bail records should have been admitted during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

In the preliminary ruling under review here, the Court refused to grant permission to appeal, although it did held that the issues raised by the prosecution were constitutional matters. Therefore, the Court ruled, these issues fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.