350 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 49 of
70
next >
last >>
Jević et al.: The Prosecutor v. Jević et al.
Verdict at First Instance, 25 May 2012, State Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina (War Crimes Chamber), Bosnia and Herzegovina
In October 1991, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence from Yugoslavia resulting in a civil war between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in order to gain control of territory. The enclave of Srebrenica, near the border with Serbia, became a refuge for Bosniak civilians from nearby areas a Bosnian Serb forces obtained greater control over the surrounding area. A UN peacekeeping compound was based at Potocari in Srebrenica composed of lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers who were entrusted with keeping the area free from attack.
From 6 to 8 July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces attacked the Srebrenica enclave and shelled the township and on 11 July 1995, Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica unopposed.
The Bosnian Serb troops proceeded to separate the women, children and elderly men from the military aged and able bodied males. The former group were loaded onto buses and transported to areas under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. The men were hoarded onto separate buses and, in the coming days, were detained and summarily executed by members of the VRS (Republika Srpska Army) and police units including the 1st Company of the Jahorina Training Center of the Special Police Brigade of the MUP RS (Republika Sprska Ministry of the Interior). Some 40,000 people were forcibly transferred and between 7000 and 8000 men were executed.
Duško Jević, Mendeljev Đurić, Goran Marković and Nedo Ikonić all occupied leadership positions within the Jahorina Training Center with Jević being the overall Commander. The War Crimes Chamber of the State Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina convicted Jević and Đurić of genocide for their participation in Srebrenica and sentenced them to 35 and 30 years’ imprisonment respectively. Marković and Ikonić were acquitted.
Ngirabatware: The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware
Judgement and Sentence, 20 Dec 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania
In the final trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Accused was Augustin Ngirabatware, the Minister of Planning from 1990 until July 1994 in the Rwandan government and an influential figure by virtue of his education and wealthy background. Indicted on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, the Trial Chamber found that Ngirabatware had actively espoused the killing of the Tutsi population in Rwanda by delivering speeches to large assembled crowds encouraging them to man roadblocks and kill Tutsis. He distributed weapons to the Interahamwe militia and encouraged them to perpetrate crimes against the Tutsi population. Ngirabatware was convicted of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment on 20 December 2012.
Case of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland
Judgment, 24 Jul 2014, 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.
Poland cooperated with the program by allowing the transfer of suspected terrorists through its territory, as well as their detention in a secret facility in Stare Kiejkuty, Poland. An alleged member of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (known as Abu Zubaydah), was held in the Stare Kiejkuty for nine months, where he was subjected to treatment amounting to torture.
The European Court of Human Rights found that as Polish authorities knew what their territory was being used for, Poland shares responsibility for any abuses committed by the CIA on its territory.
Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan
Memorandum Opinion, 4 Oct 2001, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.
The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA.
Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan, Minister Yohei Kono, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Opinion of the Court, 27 Jun 2003, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.
The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA. On appeal, the present decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court.
<< first
< prev
page 49 of
70
next >
last >>