696 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 32 of
140
next >
last >>
Sumner v. UK: Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Others
Judgment No. [2000] SASC 91, 13 Apr 2000, Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia
We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff had already sought (and failed to find) two interlocutory injunctions to prevent a bridge from being built to Hindmarsh in South Australia. It was held that this construction would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. The judge did not agree that the construction would amount to genocide and reiterated earlier judgments that genocide was not a criminal act under Australian law. Treaties are not a direct source of law in Australia, and neither is customary international law.
In 2002, with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.
Jorgić: The Prosecutor v. Nikola Jorgić
Order, 12 Dec 2000, Federal Constitutional Court, 4th Chamber of the Second Senate, Germany
Nikola Jorgić was born in 1946 in the Doboj region in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was leader of a Serb paramilitary group in the Doboj region that committed various crimes against the Muslim population residing there. Jorgić was allegedly responsible for the killing of 22 villagers in Grabska (involving elderly and disabled) and seven villagers in Sevarlije. In addition, he allegedly arrested Muslims, and subsequently detained and abused them in detention camps. Jorgić was found guilty of 14 counts of acting as accomplice to murder and attempted murder. Jorgić was sentenced to life imprisonment.
It was the first war crimes trial that took place in Germany since the final judgment issued by the Nuremberg tribunal that dealt with Nazi war criminals more than 50 years ago.
Mugesera v. Canada: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Appellant, v. Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri and Marie-Grâce Hoho, Respondents
Joint reasons for judgment (on appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal), 28 Jun 2005, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada
Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.
After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.
Habré: Hissène Habré
Opinion of the Court of Appeal of Dakar on the Extradition Request for Hissène Habré, 25 Nov 2005, Court of Appeal of Dakar, Senegal
Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.
Residing in exile in Senegal, victims of Habré’s regime instituted proceedings against him in Belgium on the basis of Belgium’s universal jurisdiction law. In order to try Habré, Belgium requested Senegal to extradite him. By the present decision, the Court of Appeal of Dakar held that it was incompetent to grant the request as Habré enjoys immunity from jurisdiction by virtue of his position as the former Head of State of the Republic of Chad. This decision is the precursor to a line of litigation that will culminate in the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding Senegal’s obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré.
Muhimana: Mikaeli Muhimana v. The Prosecutor
Judgement, 21 May 2007, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Mikaeli Muhimana was the conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye Prefecture from 1990 through the genocide in 1994. On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted Muhimana of genocide and crimes against humanity for instigating, committing, and abetting numerous crimes between April and June 1994 at various locations in Kibuye Prefecture. The Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.
By majority the Appeals Chamber allowed only two of Muhimana’s sixteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence. The Appeals Chamber unanimously determined, however, that these errors did not invalidate any of Muhimana’s convictions and sentences for rape and murder given his numerous other crimes, including his role in five other killings and ten other rapes. The Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissed Muhimana’s remaining fourteen grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber confirmed the Accused’s convictions for genocide, rape and murder as crimes against humanity, as well as his sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
<< first
< prev
page 32 of
140
next >
last >>