167 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 30 of
34
next >
last >>
El Hage: United States of America v. Wadih El Hage, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
Verdict, 29 May 2001, United States District Court Southern District of New York, United States
Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalised American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He has admitted being Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organiser of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al-Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans.
On 29 May 2001, El Hage was convicted for conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees engaging in official duties and conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States. In addition, he was found guilty of giving false statements to a federal jury (perjury). On the basis of this conviction, El Hage was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of being released.
Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa: Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa et al./Alvarez-Machain v. The United States of America
Opinion, 11 Sep 2001, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States
In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. Concerning the liability of the United States, the Court found that the issue was of such important nature that it remanded the question and initiated an en banc (full court) hearing to decide on it.
Sedyono et al.: The Prosecutor v. Herman Sedyono, Liliek Koeshadianto, Gatot Subyakto, Achmad Syamsudin and Sugito
Judgement, 15 Aug 2002, The Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal at the Human Rights Court of Justice of Central Jakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia
After the referendum on the independence of East Timor from Indonesia, violence erupted between pro-independence and pro-integration groups. On September 6, 1999 the Ave Maria church in Suai, in the Kovalima regency, in which civilians were taking refuge, was attacked by pro-integration militias Laksaur and Mahidi. The militias entered the church with homemade firearms and sharp weapons, killing 27 people.
At the time of the attack on the church in Suai, Herman Sedyono, an Indonesian Army Officer, was the regent or Chief of Kovalima regency and as such the head of government and the head of the regional authorities.
Before the attack a meeting took place at the official residence of Herman Sedyono. Herman Sedyono and the four other accused, Lilik Kushardianto, Ahmad Syamsuddin, Sugito (Indonesian military officials) and Gatot Subyakto (a police officer) were all present at the incident at the Suai Church.
The Court found that grave human rights violations, in the form of murder as a crime against humanity, had taken place at the Suai Church. The crimes against humanity were committed by militia groups Laksaur and Mahidi. The Court found insufficient proof that the accused were responsible for the attacks on the basis of command responsibility. With regard to Herman Sedyono and Gatot Subyakto, the Court found that they were not military commanders or persons that effectively act as military commanders, as Sedyono was in function of head of the government and Subyakto was a police officer. The Court concluded that there was no organisational relation between the militias and the accused and that the accused had no effective control over the militias, so that the accused could not be held responsible for their actions.
Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa: Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa et al./Alvarez-Machain v. The United States of America (rehearing en banc)
Opinion (rehearing en banc), 3 Jun 2003, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States
In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico.
Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals (including Jose Francisco Sosa) involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The Court of Appeal confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. In the current en banc hearing and opinion the Court of Appeal affirmed its earlier conclusion concerning Sosa, and also established liability of the United States: Machain's arrest, planned by the DEA in the United States, was found unlawful.
Tanasković: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nenad Tanasković
Verdict, 26 Mar 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Panel of the Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nenand Tanasković was a reserve police officer in Višegrad, where Serbs were conducting a widespread and systematic attack against the Muslim citizens of this municipality. The Trial Panel at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment for his role in this attack. Tanasković brought forward several grounds for appeal, for example stating that his sentence was solely based on testimonies of (unreliable) witnesses. Also, he argued that the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be applied to him, as this Code did not exist in 1992, when the attack took place. The Appellate Panel stated that the Trial Panel had been accurate in assessing the evidence and establishing the facts. Also, it stated that the Criminal Code could be applied, as international law, which was applicable in 1992, also prohibits crimes against humanity.
The Trial Panel had blamed Tanasković for not showing remorse during the trial. The Appellate Panel considered this to be unfair. Showing remorse could be seen as a plea of guilt, the Appellate Panel reasoned, and nobody is obliged to plead guilty. The sentence was modified to eight years of imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 30 of
34
next >
last >>