Search results

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this, while the British government argued that they could not be held responsible for atrocities which, if proven, were committed by the Colonial government in the 1950s. Therefore, the British government requested the Court to dismiss the case before it would come to a trial. The Court refused to do this, stating that evidence existed of torture in pre-independence Kenya and of some UK involvement. This evidence, the Court reasoned (without establishing the liability of the British government), should be assessed in Court. 

The District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch State acted unlawfully by executing a large amount of the male population in Rawagedeh without trial on 9 December 1947, during the Indonesian War for Independence. It required the Dutch State to award compensations to plaintiffs 1 to 7, but not to plaintiff 8 and the Foundation.

This was a landmark ruling, as it marked the first time that the Dutch government has been held responsible by a court for a committed massacre. On 9 December 2011, the Dutch government publicly apologised to Indonesia for the massacre through Tjeerd de Zwaan, the Dutch ambassador in Indonesia. None of the soldiers involved in the massacre have ever been prosecuted. Both sides have given different estimations regarding the amount of people killed, with the Netherlands stating that 150 people were killed, whereas the victims’ association puts this number as high as 431.

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this. In this phase of the proceedings, the British government basically argued that the events in Kenya happened too long ago to be considered on trial. The Court rejected this argument, stating that British law allowed Courts to let cases proceed which happened a long time ago. Moreover, the Court held that there were sufficient primary sources to establish what took place in the detention camps in Kenya and the UK Government’s involvement in this matter.  

In the ‘Context’ case, a large terrorism case in the Netherlands, nine individuals were found guilty of various terrorism offences, ranging from online incitement to the recruitment of individuals to travel to Syria. This case arose out of investigations into the flow of foreign fighters from the Netherlands – namely people heading to Syria in order to join various terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Nusra. The prosecution successfully argued that an organisation existed in the Netherlands that aimed at recruiting other people to support terrorist groups in Syria and to travel to join the fighting. The case also looked into the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and its role in recruiting individuals.

The nine accused, including several individuals who had travelled to Syria, faced charges concerning incitement to join terrorist groups, the dissemination of inciting materials, the recruitment of people to travel to Syria, the participation in training to commit terrorist crimes, participation in a criminal and terrorist organisation, and other charges relating to inciting hate and defamation. The defendants were all convicted of differing offences and their sentences ranged from seven days’ to six years’ imprisonment. 

In May 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Omar H, a foreign fighter convicted of training for terrorism. In upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided that training for terrorism in this context would be interpreted broadly. Thus, researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s other interests in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed Omar H’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.