517 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 16 of
104
next >
last >>
The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Judgment on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal of 21 April 2017, number 20/001906-10, 18 Dec 2018, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Netherlands
Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes.
Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for complicity in war crimes committed by Taylor’s regime and the supply of weapons. Kouwenhoven appealed, arguing that the amnesty scheme approved by Charles Taylor shortly before his resignation prevented him from being prosecuted.
In a decision of 18 December 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld Kouwenhoven’s conviction, finding it did not have the competence to assess the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Liberian law and that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the amnesty scheme did not prevent the prosecution of Kouwenhoven due to the circumstances in which the scheme was introduced and the obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Public Prosecutor's Office v. Ahmad al-Y (Appeal)
Judgement, 6 Dec 2022, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
Ahmad al-Y. was accused of two crimes: the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity and participation in a terrorist organisation. The court finds that the accused fought in Syria alongside the terrorist organisation Ahrar al-Sham and he is therefore convicted of participation in a terrorist organisation.
Unlike the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal does not find the suspect guilty of the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity. The videos show the accused spitting towards the deceased person and putting his foot near a body, while he was celebrating a victory over soldiers of the Syrian Government. Although the actions of him and his fellow fighters are disrespectful and distasteful, the court finds that this conduct does not meet the threshold necessary for this crime. The conduct is not degrading or humiliating enough. The victims are not severely suffering and are not displayed as a trophy.
The accused is sentenced to five years and four months of imprisonment, which is lower than usual, since the case took unreasonably long.
Solidarité avec les victimes de la guerre contre l'Irak v. Bush et al.: Association Solidarité avec les Victimes de la Guerre contre I'Irak v. George W. Bush et. al
Ordonnance de refus de donner suite, 8 May 2003, Ministère Public de la Confédération, Switzerland
Mutua et al. v. UK: Ndiki Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Susan Ngondi v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Approved Judgment, 21 Jul 2011, The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain (UK)
The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this, while the British government argued that they could not be held responsible for atrocities which, if proven, were committed by the Colonial government in the 1950s. Therefore, the British government requested the Court to dismiss the case before it would come to a trial. The Court refused to do this, stating that evidence existed of torture in pre-independence Kenya and of some UK involvement. This evidence, the Court reasoned (without establishing the liability of the British government), should be assessed in Court.
Bizimungu et al.: The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu, Justin Mugenzi, Jérôme-Clément Bicamumpaka, Prosper Mugiraneza
Judgement and Sentence, 30 Sep 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania
Casimir Bizimungu was Minister of Health from April 1987 until January 1989. He returned to this position form April 1992 until he fled Rwanda in July 1994.
Justin Mugenzi founded the Parti Libéral (PL) on 14 July 1991. He became Minister of Commerce in July 1993. Mr. Mugenzi continued to hold this position in the Interim Government.
Jérôme-Clément Bicamumpaka joined the Mouvement Démocratique Républicain (MDR) party in 1991 and was sworn in to the Interim Government as the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 9 April 1994.
After working as a prosecutor and in various ministries in Kigali, Prosper Mugiraneza was appointed Minister of Public Service and Professional Training in 1992. When the Interim Government was formed, he became the Minister of Civil Service.
The Trial Chamber convicted both Mugenzi and Mugiraneza for conspiracy to commit genocide for their participation in the decision to remove Butare’s Tutsi Prefect, Jean-Baptiste Habyalimana. They were also convicted for direct and public incitement to commit genocide for their participation at the installation ceremony where President Théodore Sindikubwabo gave an inflammatory speech inciting the killing of Tutsis. The two Accused were sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment. Bizimungu and Bicamumpaka were acquitted.
<< first
< prev
page 16 of
104
next >
last >>