skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: hutchins iii lawrence g hamdania

> Refine results with advanced case search

268 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 3 of 54   next > last >>

Bagaragaza: The Prosecutor v. Michel Bagaragaza

Sentencing Judgement , 17 Nov 2009, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Until July 1994, Michel B. was the managing director of OCIR-Tea, the controlling body for the tea industry in Rwanda. B. is accused of conspiring with his employees in order to kill Tutsis in the Gisenyi Prefecture. In addition, he was a member of the local committee of the Republican Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND) for the Gisenyi Prefecture.

B. was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on charges of genocide and, in the alternative, war crimes. He pleaded guilty to complicity in genocide and he was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. The Tribunal found that B. had substantially assisted the military and the Interahamwe militia launch an attack against Tutsis at Kesho Hill and Nyundo Cathedral by authorising that vehicles and fuel from his tea factories be used to transport attackers, that personnel from the factories participate in the attacks and that the attackers be provided with heavy weapons. These weapons were then stored in his factory. The Accused also contributed financially by providing the Interahamwe with money to purchase alcohol so as to motivate them to continue with killings. 


A. v. The Minister of Defence

Interim judgment on the appeal against the Court of The Hague’s judgment of 1 November 2005, 25 Mar 2013, Administrative High Court Three-judge Section, The Netherlands

The appellant is a former soldier of Dutchbat III, a battalion which was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission that was charged with the protection of civilians in the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. The appellant claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being confronted with the atrocities  against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and experiencing the explosion of a nearby mortar shell. He brought a complaint against the Dutch Minister of Defence and requested compensation for not receiving the necessary care after the mission.

On 1 November 2005, the District Court of The Hague held that the Minister of Defence failed to provide the necessary aftercare for his soldiers after the fall of Srebrenica and upon their return to the Netherlands.

On 25 March 2013, the Administrative High Court of the Netherlands ruled that necessary care was provided during the mission in Srebrenica because the soldiers were trained and equipped. However, the Court affirmed that the Dutch Minister of Defence failed to provide necessary care for his soldiers after they returned home. As a result, the Court found that the Minister could be held liable for the PTSD of the soldier which he developed after the mission.


De Deus (Marcurious José): The Public Prosecutor v. Marcurious José de Deus

Sentencing Judgement, 18 Apr 2002, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) together with local militia groups perpetrated a number of crimes against the Timorese population, especially independence supporters.

The Accused, Marcurious José de Deus, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. In 1999, he and other militia members were ordered by their superiors to murder a woman who had openly revolted against the militia after its members had killed her son. De Deus, just 22 years old at the time, carried out the orders by repeatedly stabbing the mother as she grieved over the corpse of her son with a kitchen knife. He was convicted of murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. The offence, which usually carries with it a punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment, was reduced in the case of de Deus to 5 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panels took into consideration his young age, the climate of violence which existed in East Timor at the time, that the Accused was acting on orders and that he pleaded guilty to the offence and expressed genuine remorse.


Gacumbitsi: The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi

Judgment, 17 Jun 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

The Accused in the present case, Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, was the mayor of Rusumo commune. He used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Gacumbitsi of genocide and the crimes against humanity of rape and extermination. He was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. 


Bancoult v. McNamara: Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al.

Memorandum Opinion, 30 Sep 2002, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.

In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 30 September 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on procedural grounds, namely that it required further submissions with regards to the exercise of jurisdiction over the claim considering its implication of the United States, a party that ordinarily cannot be sued unless there has been an implicit or explicit waiver of immunity. 


<< first < prev   page 3 of 54   next > last >>