skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: azapo president republic south africa

> Refine results with advanced case search

306 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 36 of 62   next > last >>

Tanasković: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nenad Tanasković

Verdict, 24 Aug 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nenad Tanasković was a reserve police officer in Višegrad, where Serbs were conducting a widespread and systematic attack against the Muslim citizens of this municipality. He was charged for having participated in this attack and having committed crimes against humanity, for example by committing murder, torture and rape; by imprisoning people; and by detaining them in inhumane conditions. The Panel at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found him guilty of six of the seven charges made against him, although it did not consider proven that Tanasković had committed murder or detained people in inhumane conditions. He was acquitted of one charge due to lack of evidence. His sentence, 12 years imprisonment instead of the 25 years requested by the Prosecutor, gave rise to outrage on the side of the victims.


Gasal & Kukavica: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nisvet Gasal and Musajb Kukavica

Indictment, 18 Sep 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Preliminary Hearing Judge, Special Department for War Crimes,, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nisvet Gasal was born on 25 May 1964 in Oborci in the municipality of Donji Vakuf, central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Musajb Kukavica was born on 10 March 1970 in Jajce, also located in central Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the armed conflict between the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (August 1993 - March 1994), Gasal served as camp warden of the FC Iskra Stadium detention camp in Bugojno, and Musajb Kukavica served as security commander of the detention camp. In that capacity, they were responsible for the unhygienic living conditions in which the detainees were held, and for a lack of food, water and medical help. They were also responsible for the harm that other guards inflicted on the detainees. Some detainees were forced to perform hard physical work while others were taken to the front line where there were a lot of shootings. On 18 September 2007, the preliminary hearing judge of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found that Gasal and Kukavica could be charged with war crimes against civilians.


Bjelić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Veiz Bjelić

Verdict, 28 Mar 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Veiz Bjelić was born on 12 September 1949 in Vlasenica. In the period from June 1992 to 26 January 1993, he was a prison guard in the “Štala” prison where Serb civilians and members of the armed forces who no longer participated in the fighting, were detained. During that time, Bjelić repeatedly raped one female person and threatened to kill her if she would tell it to someone. He also led soldiers of the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enter the prison, where they subsequently abused Serb civilians both physically and mentally.

Bjelić was found guilty on 28 March 2003 and was sentenced to six years imprisonment.


Sesay et al.: The Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao

Judgement, 25 Feb 2009, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Trial Chamber I), Sierra Leone

The armed conflict in Sierra Leone, from 1991 until 2002, opposed members of the Revolutionary United Front and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council to Civil Defense Forces, loyal to the ousted President Kabbah. The hostilities were characterised by brutality as civilians and peacekeepers were targeted. In particular, young women were forced to become ‘bush wives’ for rebels, and children were recruited not only to fight in the hostilities, but also as bodyguards, cooks, cleaners, and spies.

Trial Chamber I of the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, as high-ranking members of the RUF, for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In particular, this decision was the first time that an international criminal tribunal entered convictions for forced marriage as a crime against humanity separate from sexual slavery. The Chamber also defined active participation in hostilities broadly so that the crime of using children to actively participate in the hostilities would extend to more children in different roles, for which their perpetrators could be punished. 


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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 01cv00731), 27 Mar 2009, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 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 November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

In March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries attempted to exclude from its appeal the political question doctrine, however, the Court of Appeals found that the other raised claims were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the political  question doctrine and therefore, must be considered together. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s earlier finding that the raised issues are political questions and hence, non-justiciable.


<< first < prev   page 36 of 62   next > last >>