697 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 63 of
140
next >
last >>
Erdemović: The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović
Sentencing Judgement, 29 Nov 1996, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, as a crime against humanity.
In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Erdemović, Trial Chamber I balanced the relevant sentencing factors.
With respect to duress, Trial Chamber I found that duress may serve as a complete defence under strict conditions, including whether the accused did not have the duty to disobey and whether he had the moral choice to do so or to try to do so. In the present case, these conditions were not met.
Trial Chamber I considered that the crimes committed by Erdemović were of intrinsic gravity. However, it took into consideration a large number of mitigating circumstances, including Erdemović’s age, expression of remorse, guilty plea, co-operation with the Prosecution and the fact that he no longer constitutes a danger.
Trial Chamber I sentenced Erdemović to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Sumner v. UK: Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Others
Judgment No. S456, 27 Oct 1999, Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia
We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied.
In 2002, with the adoption of the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.
Sokolovic: The Prosecutor v. Maksim Sokolovic
Beschluss & Urteil, 21 Feb 2001, Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Germany, Germany
During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.
Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.
Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.
The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.
Kunarac et al.: The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković
Judgment, 22 Feb 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim civilians between April 1992 and February 1993. During this time, an armed conflict existed between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Serb Army and paramilitary groups detained Bosnian Muslim women and subjected them to repeated rapes, torture and other mistreatments.
Trial Chamber II found that the acts of the Bosnian Serbs amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It found the three accused responsible for these crimes.
Dragoljub Kunarac was found guilty of crimes against humanity (torture, rape, enslavement), and war crimes (torture and rape) and, subsequently, sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment.
Radomir Kovač was also found guilty of the war crimes of rape and outrages upon personal dignity, as well as the crimes against humanity of enslavement and rape. He was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.
Zoran Vuković was found guilty of torture and rape as both war crimes and crimes against humanity. Trial Chamber II sentenced him to 12 years of imprisonment.
Fernandez (Julio): The Prosecutor v. Julio Fernandez
Judgement, 1 Mar 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
In response to Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-independence groups emerged which sought to challenge Indonesian rule over the Timorese.
The Accused, Julio Fernandez, was a member of one such group, the Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). In September 1999, when he was returning to his village from his hideout in the mountains where he sought refuge from the pro-autonomy militias, he came across the villagers surrounding and shouting at a man tied to a chair, who was already injured. Fernandez proceeded to question the man and ascertained that he was a militia member. Fernandez then stabbed the man twice, as a result of which he died. The Special Panels convicted Fernandez of murder and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. Fernandez was the only FALINTIL member to have been convicted by the Special Panels.
<< first
< prev
page 63 of
140
next >
last >>