skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: azapo president republic south africa

> Refine results with advanced case search

306 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 25 of 62   next > last >>

Damiri: The Ad Hoc Public Prosecutor v. Adam Damiri

Judgement, 31 Jul 2003, The Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, Indonesia

The Ad Hoc Tribunal found the defendant guilty of grave human rights violations in the form of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. Adam Damiri was the most senior and last of 18 military men and civilians to be brought before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal, which has sentenced only six of the 18, none of whom served any time in prison as part of their sentences. Damiri’s verdict effectively brought the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal to a close.

The judgement was deemed rather controversial by many human rights organizations. Firstly, because of what was considered a lenient judgment entered against the defendant, and secondly, the subsequent overturning of the judgment and the release of the defendant one year later. Human Rights Watch repeatedly requested that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commission a report by a group of experts to review the work of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR) and that of the Ad Hoc Tribunal regarding the situation in East Timor in 1999.

The rulings of the Ad Hoc Tribunal were also deemed as sign that there was a lack of political will in Indonesia to holds its highest military servicemen accountable for their actions under international humanitarian law. Indonesia has also been heavily criticised for allowing a convicted human rights abuser - though this judgment was later overturned - to be involved in yet another conflict, after Damiri was re-assigned to another province of Indonesia in order to fight another secessionist movement.


Brđanin: The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin

Judgment, 1 Sep 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1992. Shortly afterwards, a strategic plan was created with the aim to remove the non-Serb population from the newly proclaimed Bosnian Serb state. To this extent, the local police, the newly created army and Serb paramilitary groups engaged in a campaign of attacks resulting in the commission of crimes against the non-Serb population. During this time, Brđanin was the President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) Crisis Staff, which functioned as a center for cooperation between the Serb forces committing the crimes.

Trial Chamber II held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime of genocide was committed in the territory of the ARK. Therefore, Brđanin could not be found guilty on such charges.

However, the ARK Crisis Staff's decision to disarm the non-Serbs was found to have assisted and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime of torture, which led Trial Chamber II to find Brđanin guilty of aiding and abetting torture both as a crime against humanity and as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II furthermore found Brđanin guilty of other crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment.


Habré: Association des Victimes des Crimes et Répressions Politiques au Tchad (AVCRP) et al. v. Hissène Habré

Judgment, 20 Mar 2001, Supreme Court of Senegal, Senegal

Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. He was indicted by the investigating judge in Senegal for complicity in crimes of torture committed in Chad.

The present decision of the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Court of Appeal of Dakar barring criminal proceedings against Habré on the grounds that the Senegalese courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals for acts of torture committed outside Senegal. The Supreme Court found that there was no provision in domestic legislation establishing jurisdiction over such offences.


Bouterse: Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Court v. Desiré Bouterse

Judgment, 18 Sep 2001, Supreme Court, The Netherlands

Desiré Bouterse, a Surinamese politician, was born on 13 October 1945. Bouterse led a coup d’état in 1980 and became the military leader of Suriname until 1987. Relatives of victims of the so-called December murders of 8 and 9 December 1982, when 15 opponents of the military regime headed by Bouterse were tortured and subsequently killed, brought a complaint against Bouterse in the Netherlands. On 18 September 2001, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed the action against Bouterse. The Court held that Bouterse could not be prosecuted because he was not connected in any way to the Netherlands. Moreover, the acts committed under the military dictatorship of Bouterse were not criminalised as such at the time they were committed.


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.


<< first < prev   page 25 of 62   next > last >>