517 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 32 of
104
next >
last >>
United States of America v. Mohamed Abdullah Warsame
Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Indictment, 12 Mar 2008, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, United States, United States
Warsame, a Canadian citizen, travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to attend Al-Qaeda training camps. On his return to Canada, he sent money to representatives of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. alleged that by attending the Al-Qaeda training camp and sending money, Warsame provided material support and resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Warsame claimed that the provisions on the basis of which he was charged violated the U.S. Constitution’s right to freedom of association because it criminalized his mere association with an organization. The court rejected this claim, finding that the statute did not impose “guilt by association,” but rather guilt by conduct that amounted to providing support or resources.
The court also held the statute did not violate Warsame’s constitutional rights to due process and to a jury determination on each essential element of the offense.
Barbie: The Prosecutor v. Klaus Barbie
Arrêt, 20 Dec 1985, Supreme Court (Criminal Law Chamber), France
Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.
After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.
A crucial question in his case has been the qualification of the crimes with which he is charged: crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago they were committed. By contrast, war crimes are subject to the French statute of limitations of 10 years. The present decision was an appeal by a number of civil parties and associations against a decision of a lower court, which held that proceedings against Barbie could not continue for conduct qualified as war crimes as the 10 year window had elapsed. The Supreme Court of France upheld the applicability of the 10 year statute of limitations to war crimes, but it clarified the difference between conduct which may amount at the same time to war crimes and crimes against humanity. As a result, Barbie’s case was sent back to the lower court so that proceedings could continue against him on charges of crimes against humanity, particularly persecution of innocent Jews as part of the "Final Solution". Crimes committed against resistance fighters were, however, excluded as war crimes.
Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2002 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
Judgment, 14 Feb 2002, International Court of Justice, The Netherlands
On 11 April 2000, a Belgian investigating judge of the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, charging him with offences constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II (1977), and crimes against humanity. In the warrant, Mr Yerodia was accused of inciting racial hatred in various speeches in the DRC in August 1998, which had contributed to the massacre of several hundred persons and, thus, he was charged as perpetrator or co-perpetrator of these crimes. The arrest warrant, which asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Mr Yerodia to Belgium, was transmitted to the DRC in June 2000 and simultaneously circulated internationally through Interpol. On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice ruled that the issuance and circulation of the arrest warrant violated Belgium’s international obligations towards the DRC in that Belgium failed to respect, and infringed, Mr Yerodia’s immunity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the inviolability enjoyed by him under international law. The Court required Belgium to cancel the arrest warrant and inform as such the authorities to whom it was circulated.
Soedjarwo: The Ad Hoc Prosecutor v. Lt. Col. Inf. Soedjarwo
Verdict, 27 Dec 2002, Ad Hoc Court on Human Rights, Central Jakarta State court, Indonesia
Lieutenant Colonel Soedjarwo was a military commander of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) in the district of Dili between 9 August 1999 and 20 December 1999. Soedjarwo was found guilty of crimes against humanity because he failed to prevent his troops from attacking the Diocese office of Dili and the residence of Archbishop Belo in Dili on 4 and 6 September 1999. At least 13 civilians who were seeking refuge at these two places were killed during the attack.
Lipietz et al.: Mme L and Others
Judgment, 21 Dec 2007, Conseil d’Etat, France
Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.
Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux.
On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that it was not competent to hear the appeal because the SNCF at the relevant time in question was a private company under the command of the German authorities and not exercising its own public authority. It is for the judicial order, and not the administrative one, to decide on the matter.
<< first
< prev
page 32 of
104
next >
last >>