skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: g extradition to india

> Refine results with advanced case search

697 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 28 of 140   next > last >>

Haagse Stadspartij et al.: De Haagse Stadspartij et al. v. The Netherlands

Verdict, 5 Apr 2005, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

A group of Dutch individuals and organisations filed a claim against the Netherlands asking for the arrest of George W. Bush. The proceedings were filed in advance of Bush’s visit to the Netherlands in his capacity as US President.

The American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) allows the US to invade Dutch territory to liberate American or Israeli military personnel in the event that they are detained by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The petitioners said that such an incursion might result in many casualties and would violate international law. Therefore, they claimed that the ASPA constitutes a threat against the Netherlands, its citizens, and the ICC, and had to be assigned to George W. Bush.

On 5 April 2005, the District Court dismissed the case. The Court held that it cannot hear cases presenting political questions. In addition, the Court held that it could not prosecute George W. Bush because he enjoyed immunity as head of state.


Muhimana: The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana

Judgement and Sentence, 28 Apr 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR sentenced Mikaeli Muhimana to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Trial Chamber found Muhimana, a former conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye prefecture, guilty on three counts: genocide, rape as a crime against humanity and murder as a crime against humanity.

The Chamber found Muhimana guilty of murdering several Tutsi civilians, including a pregnant woman whom he had disembowelled in order to see what the foetus looked like. The Chamber found that Muhimana’s active participation in the decapitation of Assiel Kabanda, and the subsequent public display of his severed head also constituted an aggravating factor. The Accused was found criminally liable for committing and abetting rapes as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Tutsi civilian population. He had personally raped several Tutsi women in his home and at other locations. He also raped a girl whom he believed to be Tutsi, and apologized to her when he later found out that she was, in fact, Hutu.


Evans et al.: Regina v. Evans et al.

Decision following submissions of no case to answer, 3 Nov 2005, General Court Martial, Colchester, Great Britain (UK)

Seven U.K. soldiers were on patrol in Iraq on 11 May 2003, with the mission to look out for and halt persons attempting to smuggle money via neighbouring Iran. In the afternoon, a white Toyota pick-up truck came near to their checkpoint, but then drove away as if it was trying to avoid it. The patrollers decided to chase the car. They followed it until the village of Al-Ferkah, where they boxed the car with their vehicles. What happened then, is not entirely clear; what is known, though, is that force was used against both occupants; they were later taken to a hospital, but one of them, the 18 year old Nadhem Abdullah, was severely injured at his head and therefore sent to the Basra hospital for specialist treatment. Somewhere during the trip he died as consequence of his injuries. The U.K. military prosecutor accused the seven soldiers – a Corporal and six Privates under his command – of murder and violent disorder.

The judge found that there were serious issues with the evidence; most of the witness statements were either exaggerated or plain lies. Although it could be established that Abdullah had been assaulted by the accused’s section, it was unclear whether their use of force – which was in principle allowed, as part of their mission to bring an end to smuggling and other armed activities compromising security in the area – had been unlawful in the current case. Furthermore, no individual soldier could be identified as the person dealing the fatal blow, and no one could be individually found to have joined or encouraged an unlawful assault. Hence, all seven were acquitted of all charges.


Corrie v. Caterpillar: Cynthia Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar Inc.

Order granting defendant Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss , 22 Nov 2005, United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma, United States

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.   


Abimael Guzmán et al.: Caso Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reinoso y otros

Sentencia (Judgment), 13 Oct 2006, Sala Penal Nacional, Peru

Abimael Guzmán was the founder of the Shining Path, a guerrilla group in Perú. The aim of the Shining Path was to overthrow the Peruvian government. Between 1980 and 2000, the Shining Path was responsible for an extensive campaign of violence, including the killings of thousands of people.

Guzmán was arrested in 1992, and in the same year, a secret military court sentenced him to life imprisonment. This decision was found to have been based on unconstitutional laws in 2003, and resulted in the retrial of Guzmán and the other Shining Path leaders. The charges included terrorism, murder and other offences. The lower Peruvian court found Guzmán guilty of terrorism and other offences, sentencing him, and his second in command, Elena Iparraguirre, to life imprisonment. The other ten co-defendants were also found guilty, and received sentences between 24 and 35 years of imprisonment.


<< first < prev   page 28 of 140   next > last >>