skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: g extradition to india

> Refine results with advanced case search

697 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 42 of 140   next > last >>

Habyarimana: Mme Agatha Habyarimana (born Kanziga)

Decision, 15 Feb 2007, Appeals Commission for Refugees (2nd Division), France

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanziga) is the widow of former Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, whose death on 6 April 1994 marked the beginning of the Rwandan genocide that was to result in the death of some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the lapse of a few months. Agathe Habyarimana is frequently regarded as one of the powers behind Juvénal habyarimana’s Presidencey and as part of the inner circle responsible for the planification and organisation of the Rwandan genocide. On 9 April 1994, she was airlifted to France.

In July 2004, she applied for refugee status but her application was denied by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). By the present decision, the Appeals Commission for Refugees confirmed the rejection and concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990. 


Ramić: The Prosecutor v. Niset Ramić

Verdict, 17 Jul 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the morning of 20 June 1992, a group of armed soldiers entered the settlement of Hlapčevići and surrounded the homes of Serb inhabitants. Ramić ordered these armed soldiers to take persons out of their houses, tie their hands with a cord and search their houses. After that, Ramić ordered them to move to the Youth Center of the municipality. At a certain point, the men were stopped and lined up against the wall of a house. One of them was asked for information regarding hidden weapons and minefields. When the questions remained unanswered, the accused shot at him and at the other civilians. He also shot a second time when they were lying on the ground. Three men died instantly, and one succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Two were seriously injured.

 On 17 July 2007 by first instance verdict, Niset Ramić was found guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced to 30 years compound long-term imprisonment sentence.


Ramić: Niset Ramić v. The Prosecutor

Appellate Verdict, 21 Nov 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 20 June 1992 in the village of Hlapčevići, Ramić ordered a group of around eight soldiers to surround three Serb inhabitants’ houses. Following this, together with other soldiers, he took six individuals of Serb ethnicity out of the houses and ordered them to move toward the Youth Centre in the village of Hlapčevići. On their way to the Centre, Ramić stopped the group and called one person to step out and to inform him about the location of hidden weapons and minefields. After this person did not answer, Ramić shot him with an automatic firearm, and then turned to the other captured civilians and fired at them as well. As a consequence, four civilians were killed and two wounded. These acts constitute a violation of the rules of the laws of war, as set out in the Geneva Conventions.

Ramić pleaded not guilty. However on 17 July 2007 the Court sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment for War Crimes against Civilians. On 21 November 2007 the Appellate Panel issued the final verdict in the Ramić case, finding that the appeal was unfounded and that the Trial Panel’s verdict sentencing Ramić to 30 years of long-term imprisonment had to be upheld.


Sipic: The Prosecutor v. Idhan Sipic

Verdict in First Instance, 22 Feb 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the war in the Former Yugoslavia, Idhan Sipic was a member of the Reconnaissance and Sabotage Commando Company, which was part of the 5th Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On an unspecified day in mid-September 2005, in the territory of the Kljuc Municipality, Sipic entered the house of an elderly woman of Serb ethnicity, Anja Banjac and killed her with a bayonet by stabbing her in the neck.

Sipic was charged with war crimes against civilians, specifically murder. The Court found him guilty of this crime. The Court reasoned that Anja Banjac was without a doubt a civilian, killing civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law; the crime was perpetrated during the war and had a clear connection to the war. Sipic was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, which was a significantly mild sentence. The Court took as an extenuating circumstance that Sipic admitted to the crime.


Boumediene v. Bush: Boumediene, et al. v. Bush et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 12 Jun 2008, Supreme Court, United States

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions. The legal provisions which suspended this right were found to be unconstitutional. Also, all previous Guantanamo detainees'  corpus petitions were found to be eligible for reinstatement. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the grounds that the United States has unilateral control over Guantanamo Bay and, therefore, the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts.


<< first < prev   page 42 of 140   next > last >>