679 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 130 of
136
next >
last >>
United States of America v. Mufid A. Elfgeeh
Plea Agreement, 17 Dec 2015, District Court for the Western District of New York, United States
The District Court for the Western District of New York has accepted a guilty plea by Mr. Mufid Elfgeeh and subsequently sentenced him to 22.5 years’ imprisonment for his role in encouraging support for IS, recruiting individuals to fight in Syria and providing financial assistance to those attempting to fight for the terrorist group. Mr. Elfgeeh pleaded guilty to part of the original charges laid against him on 17 December 2015 following his arrest in May 2014. The court records demonstrate that Mr. Elfgeeh had been trying to recruit FBI informants and that his activities had been monitored for a significant period of time prior to his arrest.
Eisentrager v. Forrestal: Eisentrager et al. v. Forrestal, Secretary of Defense et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 15 Apr 1949, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty-one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.
The twenty-one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the District Court to hold that any individual is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, an inherent common law right, where they have been deprived of their liberty by an act of the United States Government and their detention is in violation of the United States Constitution.
Abebe-Jira v. Negewo
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 10 Jan 1996, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, United States
Hirute Abebe-Jira, EdgeGayehu Taye and Elizabeth Demissie were victims of the so-called “Red Terror” campaign in Ethiopia directed by Mengistu Haile Mariam during his dictatorship in the mid-1970s. The three women were questioned, beaten, threatened and ordered to undress during their illegal detention. The women brought a complaint against Kelbessa Negewo who personally supervised and participated in the interrogations and torture of the women. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found Kelbessa Negewo guilty and ordered him to pay $500,000 in damages to the three women. Negewo appealed. On 10 January 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.
Gatera: Public Prosecutor v. Michel Gatera
Judgment, 25 Aug 1999, Court of Appeal of Kigali, Rwanda
The appellant, Michel Gatera, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Kibuye of genocide for his role in leading three sisters to a location where he knew they would subsequently be executed by a group of assailants. Two of the sisters died, the third survived as a result of circumstances outside the control of the perpetrators and testified against the appellant at trial. The Court of Appeal of Kigali, however, overturned the conviction and acquitted Gatera on the ground that there was no proof that established that Gatera had indeed led the three victims to their place of execution. The testimonial evidence relied upon by the Court of First Instance was found to be not reliable and contradictory.
Fernandez (Julio): The Prosecutor v. Julio Fernandez
Judgement, 1 Mar 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
In response to Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-independence groups emerged which sought to challenge Indonesian rule over the Timorese.
The Accused, Julio Fernandez, was a member of one such group, the Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). In September 1999, when he was returning to his village from his hideout in the mountains where he sought refuge from the pro-autonomy militias, he came across the villagers surrounding and shouting at a man tied to a chair, who was already injured. Fernandez proceeded to question the man and ascertained that he was a militia member. Fernandez then stabbed the man twice, as a result of which he died. The Special Panels convicted Fernandez of murder and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. Fernandez was the only FALINTIL member to have been convicted by the Special Panels.
<< first
< prev
page 130 of
136
next >
last >>