517 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 28 of
104
next >
last >>
Mohamed: R v. Mohamed
Sentencing Decision, 29 Sep 2016, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
On 29 September 2016, Amin Mohamed was sentenced by an Australian court to 5,5 years’ imprisonment for attempting to travel to Syria and fight there. Mr. Mohamed, a New Zealander, was convicted by a jury in October 2016 for booking flights to Turkey, and receiving the contact details of a man who would assist him (and others) getting from Turkey to Syria with the intention of fighting in the ongoing armed conflict there. In this venture, Mr. Mohamed had been assisted by Hamdi Alqudsi, another man convicted earlier in 2016 for assisting seven would-be foreign fighters with travel to Syria. Mr. Mohamed was prevented from undertaking this travel in September 2013 due to the revocation of his passport and will likely face deportation to New Zealand at the end of his imprisonment.
Al-Haq v. UK: Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Judgment, 27 Jun 2009, High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)
Can a state be held legally responsible for not taking a strong stance against human rights violations committed by another state? In this case, a Palestinian human rights organization requested a UK court to give its legal opinion about UK foreign policy, in relation to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip during the Winter of 2008/2009 (‘Operation Cast Lead’ or the ‘Gaza War’). The court most important statement was that it did not consider itself authorized to rule on foreign policy. According to the court, foreign policy is made by the government’s executive branch and it should remain within that exclusive domain.
Fernandez (Joao): The Prosecutor v. Joao Fernandez
Sentencing Judgement, 25 Jan 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. This period was characterised by a number of abuses perpetrated against independence supporters by members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and local militia groups.
The Accused, Joao Fernandez, was a member of the pro-autonomy Dadarus Merah militia. In September 1999, he (and others) were armed with samurai swords and received orders from the militia leader that they were to go to the district police station and kill all the males. In carrying out this order, the Accused murdered a known independence supporter by stabbing him twice in the back with his sword. This was done in full view of the victim’s daughters. Fernandez pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels. Interestingly, although a number of murders were committed that day in the militia attack, the Prosecutor claims that he did not charge the Accused with murder as a crime against humanity (a more serious offense) due to the lack of evidence.
Fernandez (Joao): The Prosecutor v. Joao Fernandez
Appeals Judgement, 29 Jul 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
In the first appeals judgment from a case before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes, the Court of Appeal of East Timor was seized by Joao Fernandez, a member of the Dadurus Merah militia group, which operated in East Timor during Indonesia’s occupation of the latter. Fernandez had been convicted by the Special Panels and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for murder after he pleaded guilty to stabbing a village chief twice in the back with his samurai sword until the chief died.
On appeal, he argued that the fact that he was acting on the orders of the militia chief and the Indonesian Armed Forces should have secured his acquittal before the Special Panels. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding that, on the basis of the proven facts, Fernandez did intentionally and with premeditation murder the village chief. The Indonesian Penal Code does not provide that superior orders may exclude criminal responsibility, unless those orders were given by a competent authority. Neither the militia chief nor the Indonesian Armed Forces had the legal competence to order the killing of individuals, nor was Fernandez under a legal obligation to follow those orders. The Court of Appeal also upheld his sentence.
Mendonca: The Prosecutor v. Domingos Mendonca
Judgement, 13 Oct 2003, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. The occupation was characterised by violence against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly against those perceived or known to be independence supporters.
The Accused, Domingos Mendonca, was a member of a pro-autonomy militia group known as Tim Sasurat Ablai. Through his involvement with the militia, he participated in attacks on the villages of Orluli and Surirema. At the former, he participated in the beating of two individuals with other militia members; both victims died. In the latter, he participated in a number of acts against the villagers including forcing them to drink a mixture of animal and human blood, destroying their homes and leaving almost 300 individuals homeless, forcing them to cook under threat of death and interrogating them as to their political allegiances.
The Special Panel for Serious Crimes convicted Mendonca of one count of murder and one count of persecution as crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 28 of
104
next >
last >>