456 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 49 of
92
next >
last >>
Iyamuremye: Jean-Claude Iyamuremye
Decision on extradition request, 20 Dec 2013, District Court of The Hague, Extradition Chamber, The Netherlands
The Rwandan government suspects the Jean-Claude Iyamuremye, a Rwandan national residing in the Netherlands, of having taken part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide as Interahamwe militia leader. He is indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 25 September 2013, Rwandan authorities issued an extradition request with the Netherlands. The accused challenged the request, arguing that war crimes were not prohibited as such in Rwandan law in 1994, and that therefore he cannot be extradited. He also alleged that Rwanda would not provide him with a fair trial; if he were to be extradited, the Netherlands would violate their obligations forthcoming from the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court dismisses both arguments. Since genocide was prohibited by both Rwandan and Dutch law in 1994, the double criminality requirement has already been fulfilled. And concerning fair trial rights, the Court found that it was obliged to apply a marginal test, since the Netherlands and Rwanda are both parties to the Genocide Convention and, thus, have to trust each other on fulfilling their respective treaty obligations. It ruled that extradition would not lead to a flagrant denial of a fair trial; hence the Court ruled the extradition request admissible.
V15: The Prosecutor v. V15
Judgment, 10 Jan 2014, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
In October 2012 a group of Somali pirates boarded the Iranian dhow "Mohsen" and took the Iranian and Pakistani crewmembers hostage. They were noted by Dutch navy vessel HNLMS Rotterdam (part of NATO's Ocean Shield anti-piracy operation). When Navy marines approached the ship in inflatable boats (RHIBs) they came under fire from both the Mohsen and ashore. The Rotterdam responded, causing the Mohsen to catch fire, after which it sank. 25 people were rescued out of the water, while at least one pirate died during the exchange of fire.
Of the 25 rescued people, at least four were accused of piracy. They were put on separate trials in the Netherlands and charged with piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter.
In the current case, accused V15 was ultimately acquitted of the piracy and attempted murder and manslaughter charges due to a significant lack of evidence. However, since it was clear that armed violence against the Navy personnel had occurred and taking into consideration that V15 did carry a weapon and had cooperated with the shooters, he was found guilty of complicity in the use of (armed) violence against persons aboard a ship. Considering the grave nature of shooting at unprotected persons in inflatable boats an aggravating factor and weighing this against the harsh living conditions in Somalia and the dire personal situation of V15, the Court sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment.
Case of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania
Judgment, 31 May 2018, European Court of Human Rights, France
In its self-declared “War on Terrorism,” the United States began the “High Value Detainee” program, where suspected terrorists would be subjected to special interrogation and detention. The program was managed by the CIA, which detained suspects in secret detention facilities (“black sites”) in cooperation with other foreign governments.
Lithuania cooperated with the program by allowing the transfer of suspected terrorists through its territory. An alleged member of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (known as Abu Zubaydah) was held in a black site known as “Detention Site Violet” where he was subjected to solitary confinement, hooding, and other forms of ill-treatment.
The European Court of Human Rights found that Lithuanian authorities clearly knew the purpose of the black site and the likelihood of Abu Zubaydah’s being tortured. The Court concluded that by enabling the transfer of Abu Zubaydah to and from the site, Lithuania was equally responsible for his ill-treatment.
Soares (Carlos): The Prosecutor v. Carlos Soares
Judgement, 31 May 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002 during which time members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and a number of pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated widespread crimes against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly those suspected of being independence supporters.
In September 1999, the Accused, Carlos Soares, was a member of the Darah Integrasi militia group. During an attack on a village in which the militia, alongside the TNI, burnt down civilian homes and killed the villagers who refused to run away, the Accused shot an elderly man through the neck, killing him. The Accused was convicted of murder as a domestic offence and sentenced to 15 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Leki (Joseph): The Prosecutor v. Joseph Leki
Judgement, 11 Jun 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of crimes were perpetrated by the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups. These crimes were largely directed against the Timorese civilian population, in particular, against those individuals suspected of being independence supporters.
The Accused in the present case, Joseph Leki, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. As part of his involvement with the militia, he took part in two attacks in September 1999 in which groups of Timorese individuals were surrounded and fired upon by the militia whilst they were resting. As a result of these attacks, four individuals were killed.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Leki for all four murders. Although in three of the four, he had not actually fired the shot, the Panels held him responsible for having contributed logistically and morally to the commission of the crimes by other members of the militia group. In the fourth instance, although Leki had fired the shot, the Panels excluded his responsibility as a principal perpetrator because he had been threatened with death if he did not follow the order to shoot. However, he remained liable on the same grounds as for the other three murders. The Special Panels sentenced Leki to 13 years’ imprisonment. The case is the first one in which the defence of duress was upheld although Leki was convicted anyway.
<< first
< prev
page 49 of
92
next >
last >>