Search results

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In first instance, the Thai Criminal Court rejected the United States’ extradition request, stating that the charges did not fell within the scope of the extradition treaty. The US appealed.

The Court of Appeal found that extradition is possible, since the charged offenses were punishable both under Thai and US law. Also, the Court disagreed with the Criminal Court on the political nature of the charges. Even though both Courts considered the FARC to be a politically oriented organisation, Bout was not a member of the FARC. Therefore, his offences were ‘ordinary’ offences, the Court reasoned, which fell within the scope of the extradition treaty.

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.

The appellant is a former soldier of Dutchbat III, a battalion which was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission that was charged with the protection of civilians in the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. The appellant claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being confronted with the atrocities  against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and experiencing the explosion of a nearby mortar shell. He brought a complaint against the Dutch Minister of Defence and requested compensation for not receiving the necessary care after the mission.

On 1 November 2005, the District Court of The Hague held that the Minister of Defence failed to provide the necessary aftercare for his soldiers after the fall of Srebrenica and upon their return to the Netherlands.

On 25 March 2013, the Administrative High Court of the Netherlands ruled that necessary care was provided during the mission in Srebrenica because the soldiers were trained and equipped. However, the Court affirmed that the Dutch Minister of Defence failed to provide necessary care for his soldiers after they returned home. As a result, the Court found that the Minister could be held liable for the PTSD of the soldier which he developed after the mission.

In one of the first cases concerning (potential) foreign fighters, Omar H., a Dutch citizen, was found guilty of preparing to commit arson and/or an explosion, and of incitement to commit a terrorist crime on 23 October 2013. The District Court of Rotterdam found that Omar H.’s actions of searching online for information about how to make homemade bombs, visiting certain websites, and his purchase of the necessary objects to make a bomb demonstrated he was preparing to commit an act of arson and/or explosion. However, the Court rejected the Prosecutor’s submission that this constituted training for a terrorist crime as there was a need for actual preparation or execution in order to speak of training. Omar H. was also found guilty of inciting terrorist crimes as he had put a film and text about terrorist attacks online, and he had started an online discussion about jihad in a public forum. Omar H. was sentenced to 12 months in prison, four of which were suspended. 

On 27 January 2015, the Hague Court of Appeal convicted Omar H. for training for terrorism and making preparations to commit arson and/or an explosion. Thus, the Appeals Court agreed with the District Court of Rotterdam that Omar H. had prepared to commit arson and/or an explosion. However, it distanced itself from the District Court’s finding that Omar H. had not trained for terrorism as, according to the District Court, his actions could not be considered as “training”. On the contrary, the Hague Court of Appeal decided that training for terrorism had to be interpreted broadly. Researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s interest in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. Omar H. was sentenced in total to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal.