306 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 51 of
62
next >
last >>
Ochoa Lizarbe v. Hurtado: Teófila Ochoa Lizarbe et al v. Telmo Ricardo Hurtado Hurtado
Final Judgment, 4 Mar 2008, United States District Court Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, United States
On 14 August 1985, 60 women, children and elderly men were killed in the highlands village of Accomarca in Peru’s southern Andean region of Ayacucho. This massacre is known as the Accomarca Massacre.
The plaintiffs brought a complaint against Telmo Ricardo Hurtado Hurtado (Second Lieutenant (Subteniente) in the Peruvian Army) who was responsible for the command of the soldiers that committed the killings. The plaintiffs sought justice on behalf of all the members of the Asociación de Familiares Afectados por la Violencia Política del Distrito de Accomarca (Association of Relatives of the Victims of Political Violence in Accomarca) who lost relatives in the massacre. Hurtado was found guilty for the crimes committed in connection with the Accomarca Massacre.
On 4 March 2008, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered Hurtado to pay $37 million in damages to the plaintiffs.
Drljača: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mladen Drljača
Indictment, 19 Mar 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Preliminary Hearing Judge, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mladen Drljača was born on 5 March 1958 in Bosanska Krupa in northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), he was a key official and held several offices in the municipality of Bosanska Krupa. Drljača was suspected of having committed crimes against humanity, war crimes against civilians, and war crimes against prisoners of war in the period between the beginning of April 1992 and 31 December 1992. In particular, Drljača was charged with participating in the detention of Bosnian Muslims in the Jasenica primary school and the Petar Kočić school, and in questioning the Jasenica detainees in the Provisional Military Court.
On 19 March 2008, the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued an indictment.
On 7 May 2013, Drljača was acquitted by the Appeals Division of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it had not been proven that he committed the alleged crimes.
T.: The Prosecution Service v. T.
Order of the Supreme Court of Denmark, 26 Apr 2012, Supreme Court of Denmark, Denmark
A Rwandan national who had lived in exile in Denmark under a false name was brought before a Danish court for committing genocide, namely heading a death squad and participating in the slaughter of 25,000 Tutsis in a Rwandan town in 1994.
The Danish Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the 1955 Genocide Act permitted Danish courts to prosecute persons accused of genocide, even where the genocide was not committed in Denmark and the Accused was not a Danish national. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of two lower courts and found that the charge of genocide in Rwanda by a Rwandan national could be raised before Danish courts indeed. The wording of the 1955 Genocide Act made genocide a criminal offense in Denmark, even if it was committed outside Denmark; moreover, Danish law did not require the accused to be a Danish national. It suffices that genocide is a crime both under Danish and Rwandan law: therefore, T. could be prosecuted before a Danish court
Vasiljkovic v Minister for Justice : Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia
Judgment , 12 Dec 2014, Federal Court, Australia
Dual Australian-Serbian citizen “Captain Dragan” (Dragan Vasiljkovic, known in Australia as Daniel Snedden) was the first Australian citizen to be extradited from Australia. Croatia alleges that Snedden committed war crimes against prisoners of war and civilians in 1991 and 1993 whilst in command of Serbian paramilitary troops.
In this case, the Court held that there was no reviewable error in the Minister’s determination under Section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Snedden should be extradited. While the determination process had taken a considerable time, delay did not lead to the expiration of the Minister’s power, nor had procedural unfairness been demonstrated.
The Court also held that because the Minister was not bound to consider Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention in making his determination, any errors in the interpretation of that Article would not vitiate the decision. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the interpretation.
This case highlights the desirability of domestic legislation implementing international agreements in jurisdictions such as Australia where international agreements entered into by the country are not automatically binding in the domestic legal system.
Baritima & Nyirashako: The Prosecutor v. Jules Baritima & Lénie Nyirashako
Judgment, 26 Jun 1997, Court of First Instance for Gisenyi (Specialised Chamber), Rwanda
Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, a nationwide campaign was launched against members of the Tutsi population who were subsequently targeted for elimination. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis died over a period of several months.
The present case before the Court of First Instance for Gisenyi prefecture in Rwanda considers a series of murders committed by Jules Baritima with the aid of Léni Nyirashako against Tutsis seeking refuge in the home of the latter. The Tribunal found Baritima guilty of genocide and sentenced him to death. Nyirashako was found guilty of murder. Both Accused were ordered to pay damages to the families of the victims.
<< first
< prev
page 51 of
62
next >
last >>