662 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 131 of
133
next >
last >>
Al Qahtani: Jabran Said bin Al Qahtani
, Military Commission, United States
Kupreškić et al.: The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, Vladimir Šantić, also known as “Vlado”
Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, and Vladimir Šantić were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim population of the village of Ahmići in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In April 1993, the Bosnian Croat forces attacked the village, aiming to remove the Muslim inhabitants through the commission of crimes against them. The attack resulted in the deaths of over a hundred Muslim inhabitants, numerous others were wounded and Muslim houses and mosques were destroyed.
Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the attack on Ahmići was targeting the Muslim civilians with the aim to spread terror among them and assure that they will never return to their homes.
Dragan Papić was acquitted of the charges of persecutions (as a crime against humanity) due to insufficient evidence to sustain that he participated in the attacks.
Trial Chamber II found Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, and Vladimir Šantić guilty of persecution (as a crime against humanity). Furthermore, Josipović and Šantić were found guilty of murder and inhumane acts (both as crimes against humanity).
Trial Chamber II handed down sentences ranging between 6 and 25 years of imprisonment.
Bektašević et al.: Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović,Senad Hasanović
Verdict, 10 Jan 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts, including a suicide bombing attack in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.
Pejić: Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor v. Milorad Pejić
Indictment, 8 Apr 2008, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro
Milorad Pejić was born on 4 April 1969 in the village of Vukovar located in eastern Croatia. Pejić, who lived in the United Kingdom since 1999, was arrested in March 2008 at the airport in Belgrade when he wanted to bring a visit to his mother. He was charged with being involved in a horrific massacre that took place in November 1991. At that time, ethnic Croat prisoners were taken from the Vukovar hospital and subsequently brought to a pig farm in Ovčara, outside Vukovar. The prisoners were beaten, tortured and subsequently killed. Their bodies were buried in mass graves.
Ghailani: United States of America v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani
Opinion, 21 Jan 2011, United States District Court, S.D. New York, United States
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other charges) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution. On 17 November 2010, Ghailani was found guilty conspiring to destroy property and buildings of the United States and acquitted of all other charges.
Ghailani’s defense lawyers filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, for a new trial, arguing that in the light of the acquittals, it was inconsistent to enter a finding of guilt with respect to one count.
The District Court disagreed, finding that there is no requirement of consistency of verdicts. It also rejected the argument in the alternative, holding that the conviction was not a manifest injustice (which could give rise to a new trial).
<< first
< prev
page 131 of
133
next >
last >>