skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: dolly m e filartiga & joel filartiga americo norberto peña-irala

> Refine results with advanced case search

350 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 55 of 70   next > last >>

Kuswani: The Ad Hoc Prosecutor v. Asep Kuswani

Judgment, 28 Nov 2002, The Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, Indonesia

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the three defendants of the charges entered against them and found that the prosecution had not been able to establish a link between the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and Polri (Resort Police of the Police of Republic of Indonesia), on the one hand, and the BMP, on the other. The former were official governmental bodies, whereas the latter were militia. The judgment was publicly criticized as it was argued that the TNI and the riot police were indeed involved in the violence, including the killing of the 22 civilians.


X: The Prosecutor v. X

Judgement, 2 Dec 2002, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a widespread campaign against the civilian population in East Timor in order to repress pro-independence supporters.

The present case was the first before an international or hybrid international/domestic tribunal like the Special Panels for Serious Crimes to indict a minor for their involvement in the perpetration of international crimes. The Accused, X, was 14 years old in 1999 when, as a member of the Sakunar militia group, he killed by machete three young men who had been apprehended by the militia as part of a larger group. The Prosecution had initially charged the Accused with extermination as a crime against humanity, but later amended to murder in violation of the Indonesian Penal Code. The Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Having already served 11 months 21 days in ore-trial detention, the Court ordered the remainder of the sentence to be suspended on the condition that the Accused does not commit any crimes for a period of one year. At sentencing, the youth of the Accused was a decisive mitigating factor as the Panel considered that he was used merely as a tool by those truly responsible.


Semanza: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza

Judgement and Sentence, 15 May 2003, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

The Accused, Laurent Semanza, was the former Bourgmestre (mayor) of Bicumbi commune. He was indicted on 14 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for his role in the Rwandan genocide.

On 15 May 2003, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR found him guilty of aiding and abetting genocide during the massacres at Musha Church and Mwulire Hill, which took place on 13 April 1994 and 18 April 1994 respectively. The Chamber also convicted him of extermination as a crime against humanity for his conduct at Musha church and Mwulire Hill. The Trial Chamber further held that Semanza was guilty of torture and murder as crimes against humanity. These convictions arose out of Semanza’s April 1994 incitement of a crowd in Gikoro commune to rape Tutsi women before killing them. He was also held directly responsible for the torture and murder of Rusanganwa, a Tutsi, whom he attacked and killed during the Musha Church massacre.

However, the judgment acquitted the Accused of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, and persecution as a crime against humanity.

The Trial Chamber sentenced the Accused to 25 years of imprisonment. This sentence was reduced by 6 months because of violations of the Accused’s rights that occurred while in detention prior to his transfer to the ICTR.


Kamuhanda: The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda

Judgement, 22 Jan 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, guilty on two counts of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Tribunal sentenced him to prison for the remainder of his life.

The Trial Chamber found the Accused not guilty of five counts in the nine counts indictment against him. They included conspiracy to commit genocide, rape and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, and two counts of violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. The Chamber also dismissed two counts of complicity in genocide and murder as a crime against humanity.

In reaching its guilty verdict on two counts, the Trial Chamber found that  Kamuhanda had the intent to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in whole or in part and was individually criminally responsible for instigating, ordering, aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi by virtue of his role in the killing of members of the Tutsi ethnic group in the Gikomero Parish Compound where he ordered Interahamwe militia, soldiers, and policemen to kill the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that a large number of Tutsi were exterminated as a direct result of Kamuhanda’s participation by ordering, instigating, aiding and abetting the attack at the Gikomero Parish compound.


Basson: The State v. Wouter Basson

Judgment (preliminary ruling), 10 Mar 2004, Constitutional Court of South Africa, South Africa

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The prosecutor argued that the trial judge should have stepped back from the case, as the prosecutor had accused him of being biased. Also, the prosecutor held that several charges should not have been dismissed and that the bail records should have been admitted during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

In the preliminary ruling under review here, the Court refused to grant permission to appeal, although it did held that the issues raised by the prosecution were constitutional matters. Therefore, the Court ruled, these issues fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. 


<< first < prev   page 55 of 70   next > last >>