347 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 23 of
70
next >
last >>
Sufa: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Anton Lelan Sufa
Judgement, 25 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 despite the will of the Timorese to gain independence. The Indonesian Armed Forces, together with a number of militia groups, carried out a nationwide campaign intended to terrorise and punish independence supporters.
The Accused was the leader of the Sakunar militia group for the village of Bebo. In this capacity, he ordered the deaths of two suspected independence supporters and requested that the ear of the second victim be brought back to him as proof. He additionally participated in the beating of a third victim. He pleaded guilty to the charges of murder and other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity. The Court sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment finding him liable for failure to prevent his subordinates’ crimes, for ordering the commission of such crimes and for jointly committing one crime, the beating.
Golubović : Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Blagoje Golubović
Verdict, 10 Jul 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Blagoje Golubović was born in Strganci, Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 18 April 1965. He was charged with participating in the plan of the forces of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (later known as Republika Srpska) to kill the non-Serb civilians of the municipality of Foča. Golubović was charged with crimes against humanity.
On 6 July 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina dropped the charges against Golubović. On 10 July 2009, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina passed a verdict dismissing the charges against Golubović.
T21: The Prosecutor v. T21
Appeals Judgment, 20 Dec 2012, Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of the Hague, The Netherlands
On 26 October 2010, a group of 20 Somalians, armed with machine guns and bazookas, violently attacked a yacht off the Seychelles. They hijacked the South African yacht ‘Choizil’ off the Tanzanian coast after it had left Dar es Salaam en route for South Africa. Because the South African authorities refused to prosecute the captured Somalians, five men who were members of the group were arrested and transferred to the Netherlands in order to be prosecuted.
On 12 August 2011, the Court of First Instance of Rotterdam convicted the five men for piracy and sentenced them for a period between four-and-a-half and seven years. The decision was appealed by the defendants to the Court of Appeal of the Hague.
One of the appellants was T21. On 20 December 2012, the Court of Appeal found that though the accused had not been able to call certain witnesses (namely, other suspects who had been captured together with T21 but were released afterwards), this did not violate his fair trial rights; T21 had been given sufficient means for his defence and the equality-of-arms-principle was found to have been ensured.
The Court of Appeal found the accused guilty for his intentional participation in a group that intended to hijack ships and use them for unlawful purposes and in unlawful ways. The Court further found that the accused had threatened persons on board of the Choizil with force, but, contrary to the Court of First Instance, it was not convinced that he had actually fired any weapon himself. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance and replaced it with a new decision on the facts that were proven. The sentence was reduced from six to five years' imprisonment (with credit for time on remand).
The case was the first time a criminal case, in which Somali pirates stood trial, was heard in appeal in the Netherlands.
Basebya: The Prosecutor v. Yvonne Basebya
Judgment, 1 Mar 2013, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
The current case, the first case for genocide charges before a Dutch court, took place against the Rwandan Yvonne Basebya. She comes from a wealthy family and married with Augustin Basebya, a high-ranking politician for the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (NRMD). Rwandan authorities alerted the Netherlands about Augustin being listed as wanted in Rwanda in 2007. Investigations followed, leading to Yvonne being suspected as well; ultimately, Yvonne was arrested in 2010 on suspicion of involvement in the Rwandan genocide.
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 1 March 2013 that Yvonne’s guilt on several of the (complicity in, and conspiracy to commit) genocide and war crimes charges could not be established. However, her repeated singing in public of the notorious anti-Tutsi song “Tubatsembatsembe” (meaning: “Let us eliminate them”) before the youth, unemployed and lower or uneducated and using her local notable upper-class position, combined with her repeatedly (even until the day of the judgment) expressed hatred against the Tutsis, did qualify as incitement to genocide. She was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison pursuant to the Dutch War Crimes Act: the maximum sentence at the time (which the Court regretted, noting that the 2003 International Crimes Act which replaced the War Crimes Act had changed this to 30 years).
Maher H.: Prosecutor v. Maher H.
Judgment, 1 Dec 2014, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
Maher H.’s case is the first conviction in the Netherlands of a Dutch ‘foreign fighter’ returning from Syria. He was convicted on 1 December 2014 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by the District Court in The Hague. Although it was not exactly clear what Maher H. had done in Syria, the Court found enough evidence to determine, among other things, that he was guilty of preparing to commit terrorist crimes, including murder and manslaughter. The Court based its decision on the fact that he had actually been to Syria and participated in the armed conflict there as well as his support for the jihad. Factors such as Maher H.’s decision to join a jihadi armed group in Syria that aimed to destroy Syria’s political structure and establish an Islamic State were also considered relevant in showing his terrorist intent. The Court moreover convicted Maher H. of disseminating inciting videos, pictures and a document. However, he was acquitted of conspiring to commit a terrorist offence due to a lack of evidence. This decision was subsequently appealed by the defendant.
<< first
< prev
page 23 of
70
next >
last >>