skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: vincent brown k vincent bajinja

> Refine results with advanced case search

169 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 31 of 34   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.


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.


Haradinaj et al.: The Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj, and Lahi Brahimaj (TC)

Judgment (Public), 3 Apr 2008, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands

Between March and September 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was attacking the Dukagjin area in order to assert its control over that territory. All three accused held positions within the KLA.

The charges comprised of crimes against humanity and war crimes, but Trial Chamber I held that the necessary contextual elements of the former had not been satisfied. Therefore, it dismissed all counts of crimes against humanity. It did further determine that war crimes had been committed by the KLA forces, but only found sufficient evidence for some of the allegations. Accordingly, it limited the counts for which responsibility could be attributed.

There was lack of evidence to prove the existence of a common purpose to remove the Serbian, Kosovar Roma/Egyptian and Kosovar Albanian civilians from the Dukagjin area, and, therefore, the three accused could not be held guilty for participating in a joint criminal enterprise.

The Chamber found only Brahimaj guilty of torture and cruel treatment and sentenced him to 6 years of imprisonment.


Abtan et al. v. Prince et al.: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al. v. Prince et al.

Order, 6 Jan 2010, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, United States

The case was filed by 22 injured Iraqi nationals and the families of eight individuals who died in the Nisoor Square shooting in Bagdad on 16 September 2007. The complaint was brought against the private security contractor Blackwater (now known as “Academic LLC”) and its founder Erik Prince.

On 1 January 2010, the Iraqi nationals agreed to sign a settlement agreement with Blackwater and Erik Prince, and to withdraw their complaint. The details of the agreement were not made available to the public.


Japanese Piracy Trial

Judgment, 12 Apr 2013, Tokyo District Court, Japan

On 5 March 2011, four Somalian men armed with submachine guns attempted to board and hijack the Guanabara, a Japanese Mitsui O.S.K. Lines tanker in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Oman. They were captured by the US Navy, and subsequently extradited to Tokyo, Japan, on request of the Japanese coastguard.

Two suspects, Mohamed Urgus Adeysey and Abdinur Hussein Ali, pleaded guilty. From the other two suspects, who were both juvenile at the time the crimes took place, one pleaded guilty and the other not guilty. The Tokyo District Court found all four guilty though, and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from five to eleven years.


<< first < prev   page 31 of 34   next > last >>