363 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 47 of
73
next >
last >>
Babić: The Prosecutor v. Milan Babić
Sentencing Judgment, 29 Jun 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, 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 found him guilty.
Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the crime Babić admitted to with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the adequate sentence.
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 received a sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.
Soares (Marculino): The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Marculino Soares
Julgamento (Judgement), 1 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During the outbreak of violence before, during and after the referendum on independence of East Timor from Indonesia, Marculino Soares was a Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia commander from the village of Guico, in the district of Liquiça. The BMP militia was an anti-independence militia. On 17 April 1999, the house of Manuel Carrascalão, a pro-independence leader, was attacked, resulting in the death of 12 persons, and serious injuries to 9 others. On that day, Marculino Saores had ordered his men to go to a rally in Dili, from where the attack was launched. The group led by Marculino Soares joined the attack. Marculino Soares was indicted on 25 July 2003 by the Special Panel for Serious Crimes for participating in the attack, and charged with crimes against humanity, on the basis of individual and command responsibility.
The Court found that it had been proven that Marculino Soares personally participated in the organization and execution of the attack. Marculino Soares was convicted of crimes against humanity (murder, other inhumane acts and persecution) and sentenced to 15 years in prison (13 for the count of murder and 2 years for the count of other inhumane acts).
Lao: The Prosecutor v. Mateus Lao a.k.a. Ena Poto
Judgement, 3 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until Timorese independence in 2005, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups perpetrated attacks designed to terrorise the civilian population of East Timor who supported Timorese independence.
In the context of these attacks, the Accused, Mateus Lao, was a member of the Sakunar militia group. In 1999, he and other members of the militia encountered a family of two adults (including a pregnant mother) and four children attempting to cross from East Timor into West Timor. The father was singled out by the militia, taken away from his family and hacked with a machete by Lao. He died as a result of his injuries. The Court sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment for murder as a crime against humanity.
Guterres: The Prosecutor v. Aparicio Guterres a.k.a. Mau Buti
Judgement, 28 Feb 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975. Members of its armed forces (TNI) along with approximately 20 militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign to terrorise the civilian population, in particular alleged supporters of Timorese independence.
The Accused was a member of the DMP (Dadurus Merah Putih) militia which, in September 1999, was ordered to accompany a Sergeant in the TNI to kill persons who had escaped from a previous massacre. However, the Prosecution was unable to find any witnesses who could attest to the murder of any individuals or the Accused’s involvement. The only eyewitness changed his story multiple times. Consequently, the Special Panel acquitted the Accused of the crime against humanity of murder.
Mugesera v. Canada: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Appellant, v. Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri and Marie-Grâce Hoho, Respondents
Joint reasons for judgment (on appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal), 28 Jun 2005, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada
Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.
After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.
<< first
< prev
page 47 of
73
next >
last >>