270 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 28 of
54
next >
last >>
Ntawukulilyayo: Dominique Ntawukulilyayo v. The Prosecutor
Judgement, 14 Dec 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was the sub-prefect of the Gisaraga sub-prefecture within Butare prefecture, in Rwanda, from 21 September 1990 until he left Rwanda in July 1994.
On 3 August 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Mr. Ntawukulilyayo of genocide for ordering, as well as aiding and abetting, the killings of Tutsi civilians at Kabuye hill in April 1994. He was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.
Ntawukulilyayo appealed his conviction. On 14 December 2011, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR acquitted him of the charge of ordering the killings at Kabuye hill. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber agreed with the Trial Chamber that the Accused was guilty of aiding and abetting genocide by instructing the refugees who had gathered at Gisaraga market to move to Kabuye hill, and by transporting soldiers who participated in the attack at Kabuye hill on 23 April 1994. His sentence was reduced to a term of 20 years of imprisonment.
Zentai: Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v. Zentai
Order, 15 Aug 2012, High Court of Australia, Australia
Charles Zentai is an Australian citizen, who is accused of involvement in the killing of a young Jewish man, Mr Balazs, in Budapest in November 1944. The young man was not wearing his yellow star, upon which Zentai allegedly dragged him to an army post and, with others, beat him to death.
In 2005 the Republic of Hungary asked Australia to extradite Charles Zentai. In 1944, there was no offence of war crime in the Hungarian Criminal Code. Although murder was a crime in the National Code in 1944, the Republic of Hungary did not seek the accused’s surrender for prosecution for murder, but for war crime.
On 12 November 2006, the Minister determined that the accused was to be surrendered to the Republic of Hungary. A judge of the Federal Court and later on the Full Court of the Federal Court required that the accused should be released.
On 15 August 2012, the High Court determined that the Minister could not extradite the accused, because the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary determines that extradition may only take place for a crime that was an offence in the Requesting State at the time the acts constituting it occurred.
Blackman: Regina v. Sergeant Alexander Wayne Blackman ("Marine A")
Sentencing Remarks, 6 Dec 2013, General Court Martial held at Military Court Centre Bulford, Great Britain (UK)
On 15 September 2011, while on patrol in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan, UK Marines Sergeant Alexander Blackman and his men were on patrol. They found a Taliban insurgent who had been seriously wounded (lawfully) by an Apache helicopter, and as such formed no longer a threat. After removing his AK47, magazines and a grenade, Blackman caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of his operational headquarters at Shazad so that "PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him". He ordered those of his men giving some first aid to stop, and when he was sure headquarters could not see him, he discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. He then told his patrol to remain silent about what happened, saying that he had just broken the Geneva Convention.
Taking into consideration Blackman's superior position as sergeant (under command of the patrol) and the consequences his acts could have for other British soldiers - namely possible reprisals - the Court found Blackman guilty of murder in violation of the laws of war (a war crime). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a possibility for parole after ten years, stripped of his ranks and dismissed from service with disgrace.
The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi, Assad Hassan Sabra
Summary of Judgment, 18 Aug 2020, Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Trial Chamber), The Netherlands
On 14 February 2005, explosives equivalent to 2500 kgs of TNT were detonated in Downtown Beirut, killing former PM Rafik Hariri and 21 others and injuring 226 people.
In its judgement of 18 August 2020, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Ayyash guilty of co-perpetrating conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, committing a terrorist act by an explosive device, intentional homicide of Mr. Rafik Hariri with premeditation and by explosive materials, and attempted intentional homicide of 226 persons with premeditation by using explosive materials. The Court’s reasoning was based on the connection of Mr. Ayyash to mobile Red 741, which had been proven to have monitored Mr. Hariri’s movements and prepared for the attack.
The Trial Chamber, however, acquitted Messrs. Oneissi and Sabra for lack of sufficient evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, their complicity to the attack, and acquitted Mr. Merhi for insufficient factual evidence surrounding his actions.
Tel-Oren v. Libya: Hanoch Tel-Oren, et al., v. Libyan Arab Republic, et al.
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 Jun 1981, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack and which they considered guilty of torture.
The District Court did not assess the merits, as the Court held, most importantly, that the relevant provisions of international law did not provide the plaintiffs with the possibility to take legal action. In several parts of the opinion, the Court clearly stated its opinion that it is not up to the federal courts to judge on claims arising under international law, unless an international legal provision grants a private right to sue. A federal court should not be a substitute for an international tribunal and the judiciary should not interfere with foreign affairs and international relations, according to the Court.
Also, the Court held that too much time had passed since the attack to take the matter to court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed.
<< first
< prev
page 28 of
54
next >
last >>