460 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 14 of
92
next >
last >>
Sumner v. UK: Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Others
Judgment No. S462, 2 Nov 1999, Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia
In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied. Sumner was unsuccessful in appealing to this judgment. The full chamber of South Australia’s Supreme Court reiterated that the interlocutory appeal to prevent the start of constructing the bridge should be denied, as there was no serious case to be tried. It did so, most importantly, because the ‘underpinning’ of the case, the allegation that building the bridge was in essence a genocidal act, was not substantiated with referral to domestic law.
Soedjarwo: The Ad Hoc Prosecutor v. Lt. Col. Inf. Soedjarwo
Verdict, 27 Dec 2002, Ad Hoc Court on Human Rights, Central Jakarta State court, Indonesia
Lieutenant Colonel Soedjarwo was a military commander of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) in the district of Dili between 9 August 1999 and 20 December 1999. Soedjarwo was found guilty of crimes against humanity because he failed to prevent his troops from attacking the Diocese office of Dili and the residence of Archbishop Belo in Dili on 4 and 6 September 1999. At least 13 civilians who were seeking refuge at these two places were killed during the attack.
Shannon Conley: United States of America v. Shannon Conley
Plea Agreement, 9 Sep 2014, District Court for the District of Colorado, United States
Ms. Shannon Conley has pleaded guilty before US courts to having tried to travel to Syria in order to join and provide support to Al Qaeda / ISIS. Ms. Conley met her fiancé, a jihadi fighter associated with these groups, online and they shared a belief in violent jihad. She subsequently planned to join him and the terrorist group, and arranged to receive some training in weapons and military tactics. However, Ms. Conley was arrested prior to her departure on a flight to Turkey in April 2014 and was sentenced in 2015 to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Prosecutor v. Abdelkarim El. B.
Urteil (Judgment), 8 Nov 2016, Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
On 8 November 2016, German foreign fighter Abdelkarim El B. was convicted of membership in a terrorist organisation abroad, illegally possessing a Kalashnikov, and committing a war crime by treating a protected person in a gravely humiliating or degrading manner. He had travelled to Syria in September 2013 in order to fight for ISIL. On 7 November 2013, El. B. and his fellow ISIL fighters found the corpse of a Syrian army soldier. While the defendant was filming and verbally encouraging them, the other fighters cut the nose and ears of the dead body, stepped on it and then shot it in the face. On 10 February 2014, he was arrested at the German Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, and extradited to Germany on 25 February 2015. Abdelkarim El B. was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Doe I et al. v. Qi et al.: Jane Doe I, et al. v. Liu Qi, et al.
Default Judgment, 8 Dec 2004, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States
The plaintiffs, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Helene Petit, Martin Larsson, Leeshai Lemish, and Roland Odar, all practitioners of Falun Gong, were beaten, sexually assaulted and tortured by police forces in the period before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
On 7 February 2002, the plaintiffs brought a claim against Liu Qi, who was the mayor of Beijing at that time. The plaintiffs accused him of failing to supervise and discipline the police officers who offended them. In addition, they claimed that Qi also formulated a policy that authorised such offences and incited police forces to violently repress the Falun Gong religious movement.
Qi did not reply or appear after he was served with the complaint. As a result, the plaintiffs filed a request for default judgment (a judgment issued as a result of defendant’s failure to respond). On 8 December 2004, the District Court entered a default judgment against Qi upholding only the claims of Doe I, Doe II, and Petit.
<< first
< prev
page 14 of
92
next >
last >>