683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 125 of
137
next >
last >>
Kalimanzira: The Prosecutor v. Callixte Kalimanzira
Judgement, 22 Jun 2009, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania
Callixte Kalimanzira was the Minister of Interior during the genocide in Rwanda.
In its judgment of 22 June 2009, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR noted that, on 23 April 1994, Kalimanzira went to Kabuye hill in Butare prefecture with soldiers and policemen, where thousands of Tutsi refugees were attacked and killed. The Accused’s role in luring Tutsis to Kabuye hill and his subsequent assistance in providing armed reinforcement substantially contributed to the overall attack. Therefore, the Chamber found the Accused guilty of aiding and abetting genocide at Kabuye hill. The Chamber further found him guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide on several occasions, including at the Jaguar roadblock, the Kajyanama roadblock, and the Nyabisagara football field on different dates in April 1994, and at the Gisagara marketplace at the end of May 1994.
The Trial Chamber sentenced the Accused to 30 years imprisonment.
Stevanovic: The Prosecutor's Office v. Miladin Stevanovic
Appeal Verdict, 9 Nov 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.
These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. In first instance, the Court acquitted Stevanovic. After hearing several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about it and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven.
The Prosecutor appealed the decision, arguing that the Court had wrongly considered certain facts (error in fact) and that it had wrongly abstained from labelling certain conduct - namely, Stevanovic's participation in securing the road - as criminal (error in law). However, the Appellate Panel disagreed, dismissed the appeal and affirmed Stevanovic's acquittal.
Bagaragaza: The Prosecutor v. Michel Bagaragaza
Sentencing Judgement , 17 Nov 2009, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania
Until July 1994, Michel B. was the managing director of OCIR-Tea, the controlling body for the tea industry in Rwanda. B. is accused of conspiring with his employees in order to kill Tutsis in the Gisenyi Prefecture. In addition, he was a member of the local committee of the Republican Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND) for the Gisenyi Prefecture.
B. was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on charges of genocide and, in the alternative, war crimes. He pleaded guilty to complicity in genocide and he was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. The Tribunal found that B. had substantially assisted the military and the Interahamwe militia launch an attack against Tutsis at Kesho Hill and Nyundo Cathedral by authorising that vehicles and fuel from his tea factories be used to transport attackers, that personnel from the factories participate in the attacks and that the attackers be provided with heavy weapons. These weapons were then stored in his factory. The Accused also contributed financially by providing the Interahamwe with money to purchase alcohol so as to motivate them to continue with killings.
Pinčić: The Prosecutor v Zrinko Pinčić
Appellate Verdict, 2 Dec 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Section II, Panel of the Appellate Division), Bosnia and Herzegovina
During the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Zrinko Pinčić was a member of the Croat Defense Council (HVO). Between November 1992 and March 1993, he came to a house in the village of Donje Selo, Konjic Municipality, were Serb civilians were detained. During this time, Pinčić repeatedly took one woman from the room where other civilians were detained, and forced her to sexual intercourse, holding his rifle by the bed and threatening her that he would bring another 15 soldiers to rape her and other detainees, if she refused him.
On 28 November 2008 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Zrinko Pinčić guilty of War Crimes against Civilians and sentenced him to 9 years in prison. Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Defence appealed the decision. The Prosecutor appealed the sentencing part of the Verdict, finding the sentence too lenient. The Defence appealed the Trial Verdict because of: essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions; violations of the Criminal Code; erroneously and incompletely established state of facts and the decision on the costs of the criminal proceedings.
The Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina dismissed all Appeals as unfounded and upheld the Trial Verdict in its entirety.
Ameziane: Djamel Ameziane v. Barack Obama et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-00392-UNA), 8 Jan 2010, United States Court of Appeals, United States
Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. In 2005, he filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the person to challenge the legality of his/her detention). In May 2009, the US Government filed a motion requesting the designation as ‘protected’ (meaning that it can be shared only with the counsel of the detainee and the Court) of the decision of the Guantanamo Review Task Force approving Ameziane for a transfer from Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).
On 30 June 2009, the District Court denied the request of the US Government since the Government failed to explain why the disclosure of “this one piece of information”, referring to the Task Force decision, would be harmful.
On 8 January 2010, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned this decision on the grounds that the District Court applied inappropriately the standard for determining whether the Task Force decision should be designated as ‘protected’. The Court of Appeals considered that the US Government has met the required standard and, therefore, the District Court should have granted its motion for designation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision.
<< first
< prev
page 125 of
137
next >
last >>