270 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 24 of
54
next >
last >>
Šakić (Dinko Ljubomir): Office of the County Public Prosecutor v. Dinko Ljubomir Šakić
Amended Indictment, 8 Jul 1999, County Court in Zagreb, Croatia (Hrvatska)
Dinko Ljubomir Šakić was born on 8 September 1921 in the village of Studenci in Perušić, Croatia. Šakić was the commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp from April until November 1944. During that time, more than 2,000 Serbs, Jews and Gypsies were killed under his command. Moreover, detainees were hanged, starved, brutally tortured and murdered. Šakić personally killed at least four detainees, two of them just for smiling.On 4 October 1999, he was found guilty for the crimes and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
In July 2008, Šakić died at the age of 86 in a hospital in Zagreb.
Serushago: Omar Serushago v. The Prosecutor
Reasons for Judgement, 6 Apr 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania
When Rwandan President Habyariamana was killed on 6 April 1994, it reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations, which had earlier in the same decade culminated in a bloody civil war.
Omar Serushago was the de facto leader of the civilian Interahamwe militia, one of the primary perpetrators of the crimes committed against Tutsis and moderate Hutus in the genocide of 1994. In his official capacity, Serushago led a group of militiamen in raids against Tutsis seeking refuge in parish churches, on commercial property, in bishop’s houses, and even those who were detained in the Gendarmerie station jail. Tutsis would then be summarily executed, some personally at the hands of Serushago. Having pleaded guilty to one count of genocide and three counts of crimes against humanity (assassination, extermination and torture), Serushago was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Trial Chamber. By a decision of 14 February 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Serushago’s arguments that the sentence against him was excessively long. The present decision contains the reasons of the Appeals Chamber for having reached this conclusion.
Manson v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court: Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) (Claimant) v. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court (First Defendant) and Carmarthen Justices (Second Defendant)
Judgement, 15 Oct 2003, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Great Britain (UK)
In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.
Bil'in v. Green Park: Bil'in v. Green Park International and Green Mount International
Judgment, 18 Sep 2009, Québec Superior Court, Canada
The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes.
The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. Still, the judge did recognise that a person committing a war crime could be liable under civil law, for example a person who ‘knowingly participates in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’.
RMS v. The Netherlands: Government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) v. The Netherlands
Uitspraak, 22 Nov 2011, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had planned a visit to the Netherlands from 6 to 8 October 2010. The government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) filed a complaint in the Netherlands and requested the Indonesian President to be arrested upon arrival in the Netherlands, and furthermore, that he would be prosecuted for human rights violations committed against Moluccan detainees.
On 14 October 2010, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the case because President Yudhoyono as head of state could not be prosecuted (head of state immunity).
On 22 November 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
<< first
< prev
page 24 of
54
next >
last >>