skip navigation

Search results

> Refine results with advanced case search

730 results (ordered by date)

<< first < prev   page 25 of 146   next > last >>

Leto Bere: The Prosecutor v. Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere alias Manuel Leto Bere

Judgement, 15 May 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those believed to be independence supporters.

In September 1999, the Accused, Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere, was a member of the Dadurus Merah Putih pro-autonomy militia group. Whilst in West Timor, he was ordered by the militia chief to arrest Joao Gonsalves, a known independence supporter. Gonsalves was arrested and then driven to a river by the Accused and other individuals, including members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) who often worked with the militia groups, to a river. Once there, the Accused stabbed Goncalves in the chest with his samurai sword immediately killing him. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. 


El Hage: United States of America v. Wadih El Hage, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed

Verdict, 29 May 2001, United States District Court Southern District of New York, United States

Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalised American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He has admitted being Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organiser of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al-Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans.

On 29 May 2001, El Hage was convicted for conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees engaging in official duties and conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States. In addition, he was found guilty of giving false statements to a federal jury (perjury). On the basis of this conviction, El Hage was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of being released.


Soares (Carlos): The Prosecutor v. Carlos Soares

Judgement, 31 May 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002 during which time members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and a number of pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated widespread crimes against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly those suspected of being independence supporters.

In September 1999, the Accused, Carlos Soares, was a member of the Darah Integrasi militia group. During an attack on a village in which the militia, alongside the TNI, burnt down civilian homes and killed the villagers who refused to run away, the Accused shot an elderly man through the neck, killing him. The Accused was convicted of murder as a domestic offence and sentenced to 15 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.


Akayesu: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu

Judgment , 1 Jun 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

The Accused, Jean-Paul Akayesu, was the mayor of Taba, Rwanda. On 2 September 1998, Trial Chamber I of the Tribunal found him guilty of nine out of fifteen Counts charging him with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions in the first ever trial before the Tribunal. His was the first conviction ever for genocide and it was the first time that an international tribunal ruled that rape and other forms of sexual violence could constitute genocide. It was also the first conviction of an individual for rape as a crime against humanity.

Akayesu appealed against his convictions and the sentence imposed on him. His principal ground of appeal was that he had not been represented by counsel of his choice. The Prosecution also presented four grounds of appeal.

The Appeals Chamber held that the right of appeal for an indigent person to be represented by a lawyer free of charge did not imply the right to select the advocate to be assigned to defend him. The Chamber underscored that in this case there had been an abuse of the right of an indigent accused to legal aid at the expense of the international community.

The other grounds of appeal, as well as Akayesu’s appeal against the life sentence imposed upon him were also rejected.


Kayishema & Ruzindana: The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana

Judgement (Reasons), 1 Jun 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.


<< first < prev   page 25 of 146   next > last >>