skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: amnesty international canada bccla canada chief defence staff

> Refine results with advanced case search

608 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 57 of 122   next > last >>

Abebe-Jira v. Negewo

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 10 Jan 1996, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, United States

Hirute Abebe-Jira, EdgeGayehu Taye and Elizabeth Demissie were victims of the so-called “Red Terror” campaign in Ethiopia directed by Mengistu Haile Mariam during his dictatorship in the mid-1970s. The three women were questioned, beaten, threatened and ordered to undress during their illegal detention. The women brought a complaint against Kelbessa Negewo who personally supervised and participated in the interrogations and torture of the women. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found Kelbessa Negewo guilty and ordered him to pay $500,000 in damages to the three women. Negewo appealed. On 10 January 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.


Pinochet: Re: Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

Judgment, 28 Oct 1998, High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division), Great Britain (UK)

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

By the present decision, the High Court of Justice quashed the arrest warrant on the grounds that Pinochet enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings under the 1978 State Immunity Act. However, the Court delayed the effect of the quashing until such time as the matter had been decided on appeal to the House of Lords. 


Pinochet: Regina (the Crown) v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet; Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet

Judgment, 24 Mar 1999, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

The present decision of 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords held that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity in respect of charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture where such conduct was committed after 8 December 1988, the date upon which the 1984 Torture Convention entered into force in the UK. This temporal qualification significantly limited the charges for which Pinochet can be extradited to Spain as the majority of the conduct alleged was either not an extraditable offence or was committed prior to this date. Under English law, it was now for the Home Secretary, then Jack Straw, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed with extradition. 


Fernandez (Joao): The Prosecutor v. Joao Fernandez

Sentencing Judgement, 25 Jan 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. This period was characterised by a number of abuses perpetrated against independence supporters by members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and local militia groups.

The Accused, Joao Fernandez, was a member of the pro-autonomy Dadarus Merah militia. In September 1999, he (and others) were armed with samurai swords and received orders from the militia leader that they were to go to the district police station and kill all the males. In carrying out this order, the Accused murdered a known independence supporter by stabbing him twice in the back with his sword. This was done in full view of the victim’s daughters. Fernandez pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels. Interestingly, although a number of murders were committed that day in the militia attack, the Prosecutor claims that he did not charge the Accused with murder as a crime against humanity (a more serious offense) due to the lack of evidence.


Kasa: The Prosecutor v. Leonardus Kasa

Judgement, 9 May 2001, 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, Leonardus Kasa, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. He was brought before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for having allegedly raped an East Timorese woman. He contended that the relationship was not based on coercion and in any event the Special Panels could not hear his case as it fell outside their jurisdiction, the alleged rape having been committed in West Timor. The Special Panels agreed, finding that under the constitutive instruments of the Panels and the applicable law, there was no jurisdiction to try the case. It would have to be dealt with by an Indonesian court. 


<< first < prev   page 57 of 122   next > last >>