404 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 47 of
81
next >
last >>
Morreira: The Prosecutor v. Florindo Morreira
Judgement, 19 May 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. The Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups, including the Aitarak militia, perpetrated countless abuses against the civilian population and especially pro-independence supporters. One such incident occurred on 31 August 1999 at an Aitarak militia checkpoint where two individuals were searched and identified as being members of a pro-independence organisation. They were beaten to death.
The Accused, Florindo Morreira, was alleged by the Prosecution to have been involved in the beatings and actually stabbed one of the victims with a samurai sword. However, the two witnesses that were called provided unreliable and contradictory evidence. The Court therefore acquitted the Accused, finding that withdrawing the indictment alone was insufficient to guard against double jeopardy as the Accused could be indicted again by the Prosecutor in the future for the same conduct if new evidence comes to light.
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.
Babić: The Prosecutor v. Milan Babić
Judgement on Sentencing Appeals, 18 Jul 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK.
On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I issued its judgment. It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić appealed.
The Appeals Chamber rejected his grounds of appeal: the Trial Chamber had given due consideration to the facts and circumstances, including the mitigating and aggravating factors, and since it is not bound by any agreement between parties, it did not err in not following the requested sentence. The fact that one mitigating factor (the post-conflic efforts to further peace) were wrongly disregarded, did not make the overall sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment unfair
Al-Skeini and others: Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals)
Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, 13 Jun 2007, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)
The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).
<< first
< prev
page 47 of
81
next >
last >>