skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: al-jedda secretary state defence

> Refine results with advanced case search

456 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 61 of 92   next > last >>

Cloe et al.: The Deputy Prosecutor General for Serious Crimes v. Agostinho Cloe, Aghostinho Cab, Lazarus Fuli and Antonio Lelan

Judgement, 16 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesian’s who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (all members of the Sakunar militia) killed two independence supporters – one was attacked with a machete and the other was beaten to death. A third was also severely beaten in plain view of his entire village.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted all the Accused for the crimes against humanity of murder and other inhumane acts; Cab, Fuli and Lelan were sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, Cloe to 4 years. At sentencing, the Court considered that the Accused were victims of the circumstances themselves and attributed responsibility to the Indonesian Armed Forces who pitted local populations against each other in order to secure their power over the Timorese.


Beno: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Lino Beno

Judgement, 16 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesians who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (a member of the Sakunar militia) intentionally stabbed one victim and severely beat another victim who was tied to a tree in plain view of other villagers. The Accused pleaded guilty to both charges and the Court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. His defence, that he was coerced into committing the crimes due to a fear of his superiors, failed to convince the Court, as he was not in imminent danger of death.


In re Guantanamo Detainee cases

Memorandum Opinion denying in part and granting in part respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law, 31 Jan 2005, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Eleven Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming that their continued detention without a right to judicial review was unlawful.

The Court partly agreed with the detainees. While they are not US citizens, they are being held under control of the US government. The fact that Guantanamo Bay is conveniently placed outside US sovereign territory does not change this. Hence, Guantanamo detainees have the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, a fundamental constitutional right. This right had been violated, and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures were found unconstitutional. And regarding alleged Taliban fighters, the Court held that they are state forces - regular soldiers or combatants - and should therefore receive prisoner of war-status and -protection under the Third Geneva Convention. Where they had not received such protection without proper reasons, their detention was illegal.

All other claims (based on the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Alien Tort Claims Act) were rejected, they were inapplicable on the current cases.


Mugesera v. Canada: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Appellant, v. Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri and Marie-Grâce Hoho, Respondents

Joint reasons for judgment (on appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal), 28 Jun 2005, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada

Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.

After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.


Muvunyi: The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi

Judgement and Sentence, 12 Sep 2006, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania

Lieutenant Colonel Tharcisse Muvunyi was the former Commander of the Rwandan military school, École des sous-officiers (ESO). On 12 September 2006, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found him guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity (other inhumane acts). The Chamber acquitted him of rape as a crime against humanity and of the alternative charge of complicity in genocide.

The Chamber took into account the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced Muvunyi to 25 years of imprisonment.  Aggravating factors considered by the Chamber were the ethnic separation and subsequent killing of orphan children at the Groupe Scolaire by soldiers under the Muvunyi's command in collaboration with civilian militia. In addition, the fact that Muvunyi had chastised the bourgmestre (mayor) of the Nyakizu community for hiding a Tutsi man, who was later killed by an armed Hutu mob under Muvunyi’s instructions, was also considered an aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors taken into account were the good character of Muvunyi prior to 1994, his family status, the fact that he had spent most of his life working for the defence of his country and that he was regarded as a highly respected and devout person. 


<< first < prev   page 61 of 92   next > last >>