skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: polyukhovich commonwealth australia 'war crimes act case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

711 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 134 of 143   next > last >>

Karamira: Public Prosecutor v. Froduald Karamira

Jugement, 14 Feb 1997, Court of First Instance of Kigali / Tribunal de Première instance de Kigali, Rwanda


Jorgić: The Prosecutor v. Nikola Jorgić

Order, 12 Dec 2000, Federal Constitutional Court, 4th Chamber of the Second Senate, Germany

Nikola Jorgić was born in 1946 in the Doboj region in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was leader of a Serb paramilitary group in the Doboj region that committed various crimes against the Muslim population residing there. Jorgić was allegedly responsible for the killing of 22 villagers in Grabska (involving elderly and disabled) and seven villagers in Sevarlije. In addition, he allegedly arrested Muslims, and subsequently detained and abused them in detention camps. Jorgić was found guilty of 14 counts of acting as accomplice to murder and attempted murder. Jorgić was sentenced to life imprisonment.

It was the first war crimes trial that took place in Germany since the final judgment issued by the Nuremberg tribunal that dealt with Nazi war criminals more than 50 years ago.


Schneider v. Kissinger: René Schneider et al. v. Henry Alfred Kissinger and United States of America et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court, 28 Jun 2005, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics.

The Court of Appeals agreed, refusing to differentiate between this particular alleged decision and the general tendencies of foreign policy in 1970. It therefore confirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the Constitution had provided Congress with sufficient instruments to check the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy. It should be left to politicians to answer political questions, the Court reasoned, not to judges. 


Bismullah et al. v. Gates: Haji Bismullah a/k/a Haji Bismillah, and a/k/a Haji Besmella v. Robert M. Gates; Huzaifa Parhat et al. v. Robert M. Gates

On Petition for Rehearing, 3 Oct 2007, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc.

On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request on both aspects raised by it. First, the Court of Appeals found that the scope of the record that will be reviewed must include all the Government Information. Second, the extent to which the Government may withhold information from the detainee’s counsel should not affect the burden vested upon the Government of producing the requested Government Information. 


Abimael Guzmán et al.: Caso Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reinoso y otros

Sentencia (Judgment), 26 Nov 2007, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice), Peru

Abimael Guzmán was the founder of Shining Path, a guerrilla group in Perú. The aim of Shining Path was to overthrow the Peruvian government. Between 1980 and 2000, Shining Path was responsible for an extensive campaign of violence, including the killings of thousands of people.

Guzmán was arrested in 1992, and in the same year, a secret military court sentenced him to life imprisonment. This decision was found to have been based on unconstitutional laws in 2003, and resulted in the retrial of Guzmán and the other leaders of Shining Path. The charges included terrorism, murder and other offences. The lower Peruvian court found Guzmán guilty of terrorism and other offences, sentencing him, and his second in command, Elena Iparraguirre, to life imprisonment. The other ten co-defendants were also found guilty, and received sentences between 24 and 35 years of imprisonment. 

The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the life sentence against Abimael Guzmán and Elena Iparraguirre. The Supreme Court also increased the sentences of some of the co-defendants up to 35 years of imprisonment, and confirmed the sentences of others.


<< first < prev   page 134 of 143   next > last >>