411 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 36 of
83
next >
last >>
Azad: Chief Prosecutor v. Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
Judgment, 21 Jan 2013, International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-2), Bangladesh
The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 opposed East Pakistan and India to West Pakistan and resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, which became the independent nation of Bangladesh. The conflict commenced as a result of a military operation launched by the State of Pakistan (then West Pakistan) against Bengali civilians, students and armed personnel who were demanding the military regime of the State of Pakistan to either honour the results of the 1970 democratic elections, which had been won by an East Pakistan party, or allow the secession of East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In response, Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians formed the Mukti Bahini and engaged in guerrilla warfare against the West Pakistan Army with the financial, logistical and diplomatic support of India. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was set up in Bangladesh to prosecute those in Bangladesh responsible for committing atrocities in the course of the armed conflict.
The present judgment was rendered by the ICT against Moulana Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar, a member of the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami opposed to an independent Bangladesh. He provided aid to the Pakistani Army and subsequently became the leader of the Al-Badr force, a paramilitary wing of the West Pakistan Army, which operated in East Pakistan against the Bengali nationalist movement. On 21 January 2013, in its first ever judgment, the ICT convicted Azad and sentenced him to death for his crimes. The sentence cannot, however, be carried out until Azad has been located. His trial was held in absentia as he is believed to have fled Bangladesh.
Kiobel v. Shell: Esther Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
Certirorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Court, 17 Apr 2013, Supreme Court, United States
The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and refining oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.
The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages. In 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the charges for crimes against humanity of torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, and dismissed the charges against the defendants for extrajudicial killing and violations of the right to life, security and association. On appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide jurisdiction over claims for violations of international law committed by corporations and not individual persons. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants could not continue and all charges were dismissed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appeals Court's decision, but based it on the ground that Alien Tort Statute has no extraterritorial application and thus does not apply to events that happened outside the United States.
Sedyono et al.: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Col. Herman Sedyono et al.
Indictment, 8 Apr 2003, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor
Following the decision of the Indonesian government taken in early 1999 to offer East Timor the opportunity to vote for independence or for autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia, violence erupted in East Timor. The defendants in this case took part in a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians that were in favour of an independent East Timor. One of the accused, Herman Sedyono, was the Bupati (District Administrator) of the Covalima District, one of the 13 districts in East Timor. As such, he was bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the region. Most of the other accused were Commander or just member of the Indonesian security authorities (TNI) or the Indonesian police force (POLRI), which were both promoting autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia.
In 1999, the Mahidi and the Laksaur pro-Indonesian militia groups, with the help of the TNI and POLRI, and with support from the Covalima District administration, repeatedly committed attacks against the Covalima population (mainly against those that were in favour of independence). The attacks involved crimes such as unlawful arrests, destruction of property, detention, and murder. The 16 accused were charged with encouraging, assisting and failing to stop, arrest or prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes.
De Carvalho: The Prosecutor v. Lino de Carvalho
Judgement, 18 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, the Indonesian Armed Forces and over 20 local militia groups operated perpetrated widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population, particularly targeting those individuals who were known to be or suspected of being independence supporters.
Saka Loromonu was one such pro-autonomy militia group who, in September 1999, abducted a known independence supporter from the home in which he was staying with his relatives. He was taken to militia headquarters where he was severely beaten, including with a machete. On the orders of the Deputy Commander of the militia, the Accused, Lino de Carvalho, and other militia members took the victim to a beach where he was repeatedly stabbed. His head was decapitated and brought back to the Commander as evidence of the execution. His body was left by the side of the road to serve as a warning to support Indonesian autonomy.
The Special Panels convicted Carvalho of murder as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment.
In re Guantanamo Detainee cases
Memorandum Opinion denying in part and granting in part respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law, 31 Jan 2005, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Eleven Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming that their continued detention without a right to judicial review was unlawful.
The Court partly agreed with the detainees. While they are not US citizens, they are being held under control of the US government. The fact that Guantanamo Bay is conveniently placed outside US sovereign territory does not change this. Hence, Guantanamo detainees have the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, a fundamental constitutional right. This right had been violated, and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures were found unconstitutional. And regarding alleged Taliban fighters, the Court held that they are state forces - regular soldiers or combatants - and should therefore receive prisoner of war-status and -protection under the Third Geneva Convention. Where they had not received such protection without proper reasons, their detention was illegal.
All other claims (based on the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Alien Tort Claims Act) were rejected, they were inapplicable on the current cases.
<< first
< prev
page 36 of
83
next >
last >>