725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 46 of
145
next >
last >>
Bouzari v. Iran: Houshang Bouzari, Fereshteh Yousefi, Shervin Bouzari and Narvan Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Judgment on appeal from the judgment of Justice Katherine E. Swinton of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 1, 2002, 30 Jun 2004, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Canada
In June 1993, Houshang Bouzari was in Tehran for business when he refused to accept the assistance offered by the then Iranian President for bringing into effect a project in an oil and gas field in Iran. Following Bouzari’s refusal to accept the offer, agents of the state of Iran entered his apartment, robbed and abducted him. He was put into prison where he was held for several months. After Bouzari was released in 1994, he and his family fled to Europe and eventually ended up in Canada in 1998.
On 24 November 2000, the Bouzari’s brought an action before the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario against the Islamic Republic of Iran and asked for compensation for damages suffered. On 1 May 2002, the Court dismissed the case because it did not have authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case as the claim was made against a foreign state.
On 30 June 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Justice.
Alves: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Victor Manuel Alves
Judgement, 8 Jul 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
The island of Atauro, off the coast of East Timor, had been subject to illegal occupation by the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), much as the rest of East Timor since 1975.
When the TNI departed in September 1999, a town meeting was held at which a fight broke out between the Accused, Victor Manuel Alves, and the former village chief. The latter was a pro-autonomy supporter who had collaborated with the TNI and towards whom many islanders felt animosity. He had arrived at the meeting and proceeded to provoke Alves, challenging the latter to shoot him with a rifle that Alves had brought to the meeting. Angered, Alves fired three shots as a warning; the third hit the victim and killed him.
Alves was indicted for murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code but the Special Panels for Serious Crimes found that the intent of the Accused to kill had not been established. He was convicted instead for the crime of causing death by negligence and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court took into consideration as mitigating factors the provocation of the Accused by the victim, as well as his previous role in ensuring the welfare of the islanders by successfully bribing the TNI to spare the lives of pro-independence supporters. His sentence would not be executed in the event that he compensated the victim’s family and refrained from committing any crimes for a two-year period.
Ndindabahizi: The Prosecutor v. Emmanuel Ndindabahizi
Judgment and Sentence , 15 Jul 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber I), Tanzania
The Accused, Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, had been appointed Minister of Finance in the Interim Government of Rwanda on 9 April 1994 and held the post until July 1994.
For his role in the events that took place at Gitwa Hill and at Gaseke roadblock, the Prosecution of the ICTR charged Ndindabahizi with three counts: genocide; extermination and murder as crimes against humanity. On 15 July 2004, Trial Chamber I of the Tribunal found Ndindabahizi guilty of genocide for instigating, facilitating and assisting attacks against Tutsi refugees who had gathered at Gitwa Hill on two occasions, namely on 23 and 24 April 1994. The Chamber also found him guilty of extermination as a crime against humanity for his actions at Gitwa Hill. In addition, the Chamber found him guilty of genocide and murder on the grounds that he had encouraged those manning Gaseke roadblock to kill Tutsi and that he had provided them with material assistance. The Trial Chamber sentenced Ndindabahizi to life imprisonment.
Blaškić: The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić
Judgment, 29 Jul 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
Tihomir Blaškić was brought before the ICTY for his role as Commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Council during the events that took place in the area of Lašva Valley (Bosnia and Herzegovina) between May 1992 and January 1994. The Trial Chamber found him responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 45 years of imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber found numerous errors in the trial judgment.
Firstly, it held that the mental requirement for the mode of responsibility of ordering a crime under the Statute of the Tribunal was erroneously determined. Convicting Blaškić on the basis of the same facts under two separate modes of responsibility was also found to be an error. Secondly, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber made errors in its assessment of the contextual requirements of crimes against humanity. And thirdly, the Appeals Chamber acquitted Blaškić of several charges committed in various locations in central Bosnia since it found that the prerequisite elements of these crimes have not been fulfilled.
The Appeals Chamber concluded by reducing Blaškić' sentence to 9 years prison.
El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America
Decision, 11 Aug 2004, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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 March 2003, the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaints as non-justiciable based on the ‘political question doctrine’ (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions).
In August 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the complaints raised a non-justiciable political question. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of the fact that the President is entrusted by the Constitution to render as enemy property the private property of an alien situated in a foreign country.
<< first
< prev
page 46 of
145
next >
last >>