408 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 56 of
82
next >
last >>
The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Judgment on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal of 21 April 2017, number 20/001906-10, 18 Dec 2018, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 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 complicity in war crimes committed by Taylor’s regime and the supply of weapons. Kouwenhoven appealed, arguing that the amnesty scheme approved by Charles Taylor shortly before his resignation prevented him from being prosecuted.
In a decision of 18 December 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld Kouwenhoven’s conviction, finding it did not have the competence to assess the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Liberian law and that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the amnesty scheme did not prevent the prosecution of Kouwenhoven due to the circumstances in which the scheme was introduced and the obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Simbikangwa: The Public Prosecutor v. Pascal Simbikangwa
(Trial is ongoing), Cour d'Assises de Paris, France
Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2002 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
Judgment, 14 Feb 2002, International Court of Justice, The Netherlands
On 11 April 2000, a Belgian investigating judge of the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, charging him with offences constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977); Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II (1977), and crimes against humanity. In the warrant, Mr Yerodia was accused of inciting racial hatred in various speeches in the DRC in August 1998, which had contributed to the massacre of several hundred persons and, thus, he was charged as perpetrator or co-perpetrator of these crimes. The arrest warrant, which asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Mr Yerodia to Belgium, was transmitted to the DRC in June 2000 and simultaneously circulated internationally through Interpol. On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice ruled that the issuance and circulation of the arrest warrant violated Belgium’s international obligations towards the DRC in that Belgium failed to respect, and infringed, Mr Yerodia’s immunity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the inviolability enjoyed by him under international law. The Court required Belgium to cancel the arrest warrant and inform as such the authorities to whom it was circulated.
Suresh v. Canada: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Judgment, 1 Nov 2002, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.
The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.
Da Silva: The Prosecutor v. Joao Franca da Silva alias Johni Franca
Judgement, 5 Dec 2002, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters.
The Accused, Joao Franca da Silva, was the Commander of the Kaer Metin Merah Putih militia (KMP) in Lolotoe. In May 1999, he participated in a number of attacks directed at independence supporters including the detention of numerous individuals at the KORAMIL military centre who were kept in small rooms without proper sanitation, and many of whom were beaten and interrogated about their connections. He also ordered the beating of a number of independence supporters, and in one vicious incident, he forced the victim to eat his own ear.
The Lolotoe case was one of the major trials before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. Da Silva was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to four counts of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty as a crime against humanity and one count of torture as a crime against humanity. The remaining charges against him (persecution, other inhumane acts) were withdrawn by the Prosecutor.
<< first
< prev
page 56 of
82
next >
last >>