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 60 of 122   next > last >>

Payne: Regina v. Payne

Sentencing Hearing Transcript, 30 Apr 2007, General Court Martial held at Military Court Centre Bulford, Great Britain (UK)

In September 2003, members of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment of the British Armed Forces detained a number of Iraqi individuals in the course of a series of hotel raids in Basra. The detainees were forced to adopt stress positions for prolonged periods of time, they were hooded and handcuffed, they were denied sleep and a particularly egregious method was adopted to ensure that they stayed awake, known as the “choir.” The detainees would be kicked and punched if they fell asleep, in response to which they would cry out in pain, resembling the voice of a choir.

Following an investigation, 7 members of the armed forces were brought before a Court Martial in Wiltshire, including Corporal Donald Payne. Payne was cleared of manslaughter and perverting the course of justice charges but he pleaded guilty to inhuman treatment in violation of the laws of war. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and he was dismissed from service. The case was very well publicised, and Payne became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime under the provisions of the 2001 International Criminal Court Act. The questions that the Court Martial left unanswered later formed the subject of the Baha Mousa Inquiry, named after the detainee who died as a result of his interrogation.


Ramić: The Prosecutor v. Niset Ramić

Verdict, 17 Jul 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the morning of 20 June 1992, a group of armed soldiers entered the settlement of Hlapčevići and surrounded the homes of Serb inhabitants. Ramić ordered these armed soldiers to take persons out of their houses, tie their hands with a cord and search their houses. After that, Ramić ordered them to move to the Youth Center of the municipality. At a certain point, the men were stopped and lined up against the wall of a house. One of them was asked for information regarding hidden weapons and minefields. When the questions remained unanswered, the accused shot at him and at the other civilians. He also shot a second time when they were lying on the ground. Three men died instantly, and one succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Two were seriously injured.

 On 17 July 2007 by first instance verdict, Niset Ramić was found guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced to 30 years compound long-term imprisonment sentence.


Fofana & Kondewa: The Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa

Judgement, 2 Aug 2007, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Trial Chamber I), Sierra Leone

Fofana and Kondewa were leaders in the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), an armed group that was participating in the conflict in Sierra Leone in order to restore the democratically elected government of President Kabbah who had been ousted by a coup of the Revolutionary United Forces (RUF) and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). The Accused were charged with eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed throughout the Southern and Eastern provinces of Sierra Leone including murder, cruel treatment (mutilation, hacking of limbs), terrorising the civilian population, burning and looting civilian property, using child soldiers in the hostilities and collective punishments.

Trial Chamber I found that the Accused were not guilty of crimes against humanity as it could not be proven that the attacks were directed primarily against the civilian population. The Accused were found guilty of aiding and abetting CDF forces in their commission of the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishments; Kondewa was additionally guilty of enlisting child soldiers. The Trial Chamber did not consider that they were guilty either for participating in a common plan to defeat the RUF/AFRC forces or as superiors responsible for the acts committed by their CDF subordinates.


Handžić and Dautović : Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Enes Handžić and Senad Dautović

Indictment, 7 Dec 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Special Department for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Both accused, Enes Handžić and Senad Dautović, were found guilty of war crimes against humanity for their participation in the unlawful transport of civilians to camps, forced labour, inhumane treatments and murders, together with the civilian authorities of the Bugojno Municipality and the military units of the Army of BiH.

The case of Senad Dautović is currently on appeal.


Bismullah et al. v. Gates: Haji Bismullah a/k/a Haji Bismillah, and a/k/a Haji Besmella v. Robert M. Gates; Huzaifa Parhat et al. v. Robert M. Gates; Abdusabour v. Robert M. Gates; Abdusemet v. Robert M. Gates; Jalal Jalaldin v. Robert M. Gates; Khalid Ali v. Robert M. Gates; Sabir Osman v. Robert M. Gates; Hammad v. Robert M. Gates and Wade F. Davis

Order, 1 Feb 2008, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.


<< first < prev   page 60 of 122   next > last >>