476 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 3 of
96
next >
last >>
Mpambara: Public Prosecutor v. Joseph Mpambara
Judgment, 21 Oct 2008, Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Netherlands
In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.
Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.
In the present decision, the Supreme Court of The Netherlands rejected the appeal of the Public Prosecutor against the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague. The Supreme Court confirmed that Dutch Courts have no jurisdiction over the crime of genocide allegedly committed by the Accused. This does not, however, bar prosecution of the Accused for war crimes and torture.
Popović et al.: The Prosecutor v. Popović et al
Judgment (Public Redacted), 10 Jun 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
The Bosnian Serb Forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and Žepa between March and September 1995.
After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, the men were separated from the women, children and elderly, and transported to locations where they were detained and killed.
The Trial Chamber found that these acts constituted genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Chamber found that there were two separate criminal plans, the first of which aimed to murder the Bosnian Muslim men, and the second to remove the civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa.
For their acts and omissions, the seven accused were found guilty on several counts. The Chamber found all of the accused responsible on counts of crimes against humanity. Popović, Beara, Nikolić, and Borovčanin were found guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war, and with the exception of Borovčanin, they were also found guilty on charges of genocide.
While Popović and Beara received a punishment of life imprisonment, the rest received sentences between 5 and 35 years of imprisonment.
Perišić: The Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić
Judgment (public with confidential annex c), 6 Sep 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
Momčilo Perišić was a high-level military officer in the Yugoslav Army, which provided assistance both through sending weapons and through paying the salaries of the officers of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that of the Serbian Krajina (SVK).
Three incidents were relevant for the purposes of his trial. The shelling and sniping in Sarajevo, the invasion of the town of Srebrenica, both perpetrated by the VRS, and the SVK's attacks in Zagreb.
The Chamber found Perišić guilty as aider and abettor to war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the incidents in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.
The Chamber found him not guilty for his failure to punish the acts of the VRS in Sarajevo and Srebrenica due to the lack of his effective control over the conduct of the VRS.
However, he was found guilty for the failure to punish the criminal behavior of the SVK, over the conduct of which he did possess effective control. Perišić was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment.
Erdemović: The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović
Sentencing Judgement, 29 Nov 1996, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, as a crime against humanity.
In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Erdemović, Trial Chamber I balanced the relevant sentencing factors.
With respect to duress, Trial Chamber I found that duress may serve as a complete defence under strict conditions, including whether the accused did not have the duty to disobey and whether he had the moral choice to do so or to try to do so. In the present case, these conditions were not met.
Trial Chamber I considered that the crimes committed by Erdemović were of intrinsic gravity. However, it took into consideration a large number of mitigating circumstances, including Erdemović’s age, expression of remorse, guilty plea, co-operation with the Prosecution and the fact that he no longer constitutes a danger.
Trial Chamber I sentenced Erdemović to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Erdemović: The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović
Judgment (in Appeal), 7 Oct 1997, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to the count of murder as a crime against humanity. Trial Chamber I sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber rejected Erdemović’s grounds in which he asked for his acquittal or in the alternative, for the revision of his sentence.
The Appeals Chamber, acting on its own initiative, found that duress does not afford a complete defence to a soldier who is charged with a crime against humanity and/or a war crime. Therefore, the guilty plea of Erdemović was not equivocal. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber found that the guilty plea was also not informed. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber decided that the case must be remitted to a Trial Chamber and Erdemović be allowed to replead in full awareness of the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of such a plea.
<< first
< prev
page 3 of
96
next >
last >>