skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: g extradition to india

> Refine results with advanced case search

692 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 128 of 139   next > last >>

Kličković: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Gojko Kličković, Mladen Drljača and Jovan Ostojić

Verdict, 5 Nov 2010, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina


Mungwarere : Sa Majesté la Reine v. Jacques Mungwarere

Inscription - requête pour casser l'acte d'accusation, 9 May 2011, Cour Supérieure de Justice de l'Ontario / Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada


Faqirzada: Public Prosecutor v. Abdullah Faqirzada

Judgment, 8 Nov 2011, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Criminal Division, The Netherlands

Abdoullah Faqirzada, an Afghan national born in 1950, was an officer of the Afghan security police force KhAD (Khadamat-e Etela'at-e Dawlati) in the period 1979-1989. This security police force was known for committing various human rights violations against anti-regime supporters. In 1994, Faqirzada left Afghanistan and went to the Netherlands where he applied for asylum but in vain and therefore stayed in the country illegally. In 2006, the Dutch authorities arrested him on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Between 4 and 15 June 2007, the District Court of The Hague tried him for committing international crimes (war crimes and crimes against humanity). He was acquitted in 2007 because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was responsible for crimes committed by the security police force. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court also affirmed Faqirzada’s acquittal.


Duch: The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch

Judgement, 3 Feb 2012, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Cambodia

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes. 


Al-Zahrani & Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.: Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254), 21 Feb 2012, United States Court of Appeals, United States

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.


<< first < prev   page 128 of 139   next > last >>