725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 51 of
145
next >
last >>
Wenzel et al.: The Prosecutor v. Hugo Salas Wenzel y otros
Sentencia (Sentencing judgment), 28 Jan 2005, Criminal Court of Santiago, Chile
In re Guantanamo Detainee cases
Memorandum Opinion denying in part and granting in part respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law, 31 Jan 2005, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Eleven Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming that their continued detention without a right to judicial review was unlawful.
The Court partly agreed with the detainees. While they are not US citizens, they are being held under control of the US government. The fact that Guantanamo Bay is conveniently placed outside US sovereign territory does not change this. Hence, Guantanamo detainees have the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, a fundamental constitutional right. This right had been violated, and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures were found unconstitutional. And regarding alleged Taliban fighters, the Court held that they are state forces - regular soldiers or combatants - and should therefore receive prisoner of war-status and -protection under the Third Geneva Convention. Where they had not received such protection without proper reasons, their detention was illegal.
All other claims (based on the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Alien Tort Claims Act) were rejected, they were inapplicable on the current cases.
Soares (Marcelino): The Prosecutor v. Marcelino Soares
Judgement, 17 Feb 2005, Court of Appeal (Tribunal de Recurso), Special Panel for Serious Crimes, Dili District Court, East Timor
Marcelino Soares was a Village Level Commander of the Indonesian Army (TNI) during the violence that followed after East Timor’s 1999 referendum concerning its independence. On 20 April 1999 soldiers under the command of Soares arrested three pro-independence supporters on his orders. The three prisoners, Luis Dias Soares, Rafael de Jesus and Felipe de Sousa were taken to an empty building on the orders of Marcelino Soares were they were detained, interrogated and physically abused by Soares himself and his subordinates. Luis Dias Soares died as a result of the wounds inflicted on him.
Soares was charged with murder, torture and persecution by illegal detention as crimes against humanity. The Court found that Soares was responsible for the murder of Dias Soares on the basis of command responsibility, as the death of Dias Soares resulted from his omission to control the soldiers under his command. For murder (or torture, or persecution) to be considered a crime against humanity, the act must be part of a widespread and systematic attack. The Court considered this was the case, and that Soares knew about this, as he attended TNI meetings.
The Trial Court convicted Soares, on the basis of both individual and command responsibility, for murder of one person and torture and persecution of three persons, as crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to 11 years imprisonment.
The Public Defender appealed against the conviction of the Dili District Court. The Court of Appeal examined whether an error of fact (leading to an error of law) had been committed by the Trial Court, when it acknowledged the systematic character of the attack against the civilian population contextual to the conduct of the accused, the illegality of detention of victims and the command responsibility of the accused.
The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court had not erred in these matters and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
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.
Rutaganira: The Prosecutor v. Vincent Rutaganira
Judgement and Sentence, 14 Mar 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania
From 1985 to 1994, Vincent Rutaganira was conseiller communal (councilor)of Mubuga sector in Kibuye prefecture. On 6 May 1996, the Prosecutor of ICTR charged him with seven counts including genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, murder, extermination and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.
On 7 December 2004, the Prosecutor and the Accused reached an agreement, pursuant to which the latter pleaded guilty to count 16 of the indictment charging him with extermination by omission as a crime against humanity for the massacres against Tutsi civilians at Mubuga church between 14 and 17 April 1994. The Trial Chamber acquitted the Accused on the other charged for lack of evidence.
The Chamber sentenced Rutaganira to 6 years of imprisonment. It took into consideration several mitigating factors including his voluntary surrender to the Tribunal in March 2002, his guilty plea, his good behaviour while in detention, his advanced age of 60 and his ill health. The Chamber further took into account the Accused’s expression of remorse, the assistance he had provided to some victims in Mubuga sector, as well as the lack of previous criminal record.
<< first
< prev
page 51 of
145
next >
last >>