478 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 52 of
96
next >
last >>
United States of America v. Nader Elhuzayel and Muhanad Badawi
Jury Verdict, 21 Jun 2016, District Court for the Central District of California, United States
Two men, Mr. Nader Elhuzayel and Mr. Muhanad Badawi, were found guilty by a jury of conspiring to support the Islamic State on 21 June 2016 after earlier pleading not guilty. In particular, Mr. Elhuzayel, who was arrested prior to boarding a flight to Israel via Turkey at Los Angeles International Airport, was found to have encouraged others to support and join the Islamic State, and to have vowed to travel to Syria to fight for the terrorist group himself. Both were also convicted of financial fraud charges, the proceeds of which were used to fund the travel. A decision with regard to sentencing is anticipated later this year.
The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Ruling of the three judge panel at the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch, 21 Apr 2017, 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, The Netherlands
Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes.
Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for illegally importing weapons and ammunition and complicity in war crimes committed by Charles Taylor’s regime. Kouwenhoven was not protected from prosecution by the Liberian Amnesty Scheme introduced by Charles Taylor’s government prior to Taylor’s resignation. The Court found that Kouwenhoven had deliberately provided the weapons used for the war crimes committed by the combined Liberian armed forces and therefore was an accomplice to these war crimes.
Eshetu Alemu
Judgment, 8 Jun 2022, The Court of Appeal in The Hague, The Netherlands
In the 1970s, the “Derg” military government took over the state power in Ethiopia. This “Red Terror” regime included a violent crackdown on rebel groups and other political opponents, including the Ethiopian Peoples Revolution Party (EPRP), with whom the Derg was engaged in a non-international armed conflict. In an effort to eradicate the EPRP, the accused Eshetu Alemu, the sole representative of the Derg in the Gojjam region, ordered the unlawful arrest of around 300 alleged party members. They were detained in cruel and inhumane conditions and subjected to torture and killings.
The Court of Appeal established that Alemu knew and participated in these war crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment, upholding the verdict of the District Court of The Hague in 2017.
The investigation and prosecution of these crimes began after an investigative journalist published an article about the defendant in 1998. He had been living in the Netherlands, holding Dutch nationality at that point and had not been held accountable for the atrocities.
Appeals Judgment in the Case of Anwar Raslan
Order, 20 Mar 2024, Third Panel of the Federal Court of Justice, Germany
Mr Raslan was accused of committing crimes against humanity, torture, rape, sexual coercion, murder, and numerous other serious crimes in violation of international law. In 2022, the Koblenz Higher Regional Court convicted him for his part in Syria’s violent suppression of oppositionists and sentenced him to life in prison. Mr Raslan appealed his conviction on several grounds, which the present Appeals Order assessed.
First, Mr Raslan argued that since he was acting on behalf of the Syrian government, his actions should be immune to prosecution. The court disagreed, stating that acting under the direction of the state does not provide immunity for the commission of international crimes. Second, Mr Raslan argued that allowing the prosecution to read a UN Commission of Inquiry report to establish much of the factual background violated a rule that normally requires an individual to testify to their findings. The court disagreed and applied an exception that allows reports from public authorities to be read in court without calling the authors to testify. The court reasoned that the United Nations is to be treated on a par with any German public authority, and as a public authority, its reports are generally considered reliable. It also explained that the experts who drafted the reports would likely have little to add beyond what is already written, so requiring them to testify would be unreasonably burdensome without providing any real benefit.
Third, Mr Raslan challenged several of his convictions on multiple grounds. The court reduced a conviction of rape to sexual coercion because, at the time the crime was committed, the law required Mr Raslan to be physically present, which he was not. The court also overturned two counts of sexual coercion because those two crimes were already tried correctly in his conviction for crimes against humanity. In other words, he cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Two counts of sexually abusing prisoners were reduced to aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of prisoners because, like his former rape conviction, the law at the time required that he be physically present, and he was not. Finally, his last count of sexual abuse of a prisoner was overturned and dismissed because the government only has five years after the crime to bring charges for this offense.
Mr Raslan’s sentence of life imprisonment remained unaltered.
Kruger v. The Commonwealth of Australia: Alec Kruger and others v. The Commonwealth of Australia
Order, 31 Jul 1997, High Court of Australia, Australia
Eight inhabitants of the Northern Territory (Australia) who had been taken from their families between 1925 and 1944 under the Aboriginals Ordinance of 1918 (which allowed the forced removal of children of mixed Aboriginal descent), and a mother, Rose Napangardi McClary, whose child had been taken from her under the same law, sought a declaration that the Ordinance was unconstitutional. They instituted legal proceedings in 1995. In July 1997, the High Court rejected all their arguments and held that the Ordinance was not unconstitutional.
<< first
< prev
page 52 of
96
next >
last >>