skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: hutchins iii lawrence g hamdania

> Refine results with advanced case search

266 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 31 of 54   next > last >>

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.


Kajelijeli: The Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli

Judgement and Sentence , 1 Dec 2003, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

On 1 December 2003, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR delivered its judgment on the case against Juvénal Kajelijeli, former bourgmestre (mayor) of Mukingo. In its verdict on the 11-count indictment, the Tribunal found him guilty on three counts: genocide (count 2); direct and public incitement to commit genocide (count 4); and, extermination as a crime against humanity (count 6).

He was sentenced for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity with imprisonment for the remainder of his life, and with 15 years imprisonment for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. The sentences would be served concurrently. He was given credit of five years, five months and 25 days for time already spent in custody.

The Accused was acquitted of the following three counts: conspiracy to commit genocide (count 1); rape as a crime against humanity (count 7); and other inhumane acts of crimes against humanity (count 9). Earlier, on 13 September 2002, following a Defence motion, the Tribunal found that the Accused was not guilty of the two counts of war crimes—i.e. the charge of violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons (count 10); and causing outrages upon personal dignity (count 11). 


Kamuhanda: The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda

Judgement, 22 Jan 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, guilty on two counts of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Tribunal sentenced him to prison for the remainder of his life.

The Trial Chamber found the Accused not guilty of five counts in the nine counts indictment against him. They included conspiracy to commit genocide, rape and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, and two counts of violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. The Chamber also dismissed two counts of complicity in genocide and murder as a crime against humanity.

In reaching its guilty verdict on two counts, the Trial Chamber found that  Kamuhanda had the intent to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in whole or in part and was individually criminally responsible for instigating, ordering, aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi by virtue of his role in the killing of members of the Tutsi ethnic group in the Gikomero Parish Compound where he ordered Interahamwe militia, soldiers, and policemen to kill the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that a large number of Tutsi were exterminated as a direct result of Kamuhanda’s participation by ordering, instigating, aiding and abetting the attack at the Gikomero Parish compound.


Correira: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Abilio Mendes Correira

Judgement, 9 Mar 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups operated throughout the territory. They were responsible for perpetrating a number of crimes against the civilian population, particularly those perceived to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Abilio Mendes Correia, was a member of the Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia group who in August 1999 came across a truck carrying a well-known leader of the pro-independence group Conselho Nacional da Resistencia Timorense (CNRT). Acting on orders, the Accused and other militia members proceeded to remove the victim from the truck in which he was travelling and then severely beat him. The beating was halted when the victim was taken away for questioning; He was never seen alive again.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. However, with credit for the time he had already served in pre-trial detention, he was released two days after the judgment.


El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America

Decision, 11 Aug 2004, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In March 2003, the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaints as non-justiciable based on the ‘political question doctrine’ (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions).

In August 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the complaints raised a non-justiciable political question. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of the fact that the President is entrusted by the Constitution to render as enemy property the private property of an alien situated in a foreign country.


<< first < prev   page 31 of 54   next > last >>