skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: rigoberta menchu rios montt 'guatemala genocide case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

662 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 63 of 133   next > last >>

Marić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Marinko Marić

Indictment, 22 Dec 2006, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina


Vračević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mirko Vračević a/k/a Srbin

Indictment, 27 Dec 2006, State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mirko Vračević was born on 15 March 1945 in Donji Smrtići in Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was member of the Bijelo Polje Battalion of the Second Brigade of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), and a guard in the Vojno prison facility which was set up by the HVO. In the period between July 1993 and March 1994, Vračević planned, instigated and perpetrated an attack conducted by the HVO against the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniak) residing in the municipality of Mostar. During that attack, 76 women, children and elderly were arrested and later kept in houses in Vojno village located in the Mostar municipality. Moreover, hundreds of men were kept in garages and cellars of houses where they were beaten and psychologically maltreated, and as a result, 16 of them died. During their detention, the Bosniak civilians did not have access to adequate food, clothing, drinking water or medical care.


Bismullah et al. v. Gates: Haji Bismullah, Haji Mohammad Wali v. Robert M. Gates; Huzaifa Parhat et al. v. Robert M. Gates

Appeals Judgment, 20 Jul 2007, 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.

The 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 Court of Appeals considered that these are the “reasonably available information in the possession of the U.S. Government”, without, however, hindering the Government’s ability to subject highly sensitive information to a protective order (meaning that the inspection of available information should be allowed to the detainees counsel with the exception of certain highly sensitive information, which will be available to the Court only).


Tanasković: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nenad Tanasković

Verdict, 24 Aug 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nenad Tanasković was a reserve police officer in Višegrad, where Serbs were conducting a widespread and systematic attack against the Muslim citizens of this municipality. He was charged for having participated in this attack and having committed crimes against humanity, for example by committing murder, torture and rape; by imprisoning people; and by detaining them in inhumane conditions. The Panel at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found him guilty of six of the seven charges made against him, although it did not consider proven that Tanasković had committed murder or detained people in inhumane conditions. He was acquitted of one charge due to lack of evidence. His sentence, 12 years imprisonment instead of the 25 years requested by the Prosecutor, gave rise to outrage on the side of the victims.


Janković (Zoran): Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Zoran Janković

Verdict, 23 Oct 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the second instance verdict in the Zoran Janković case, the Appellate Division found the appeal to be unfounded and upheld the first instance verdict, acquitting the accused of the charges entered against him. This decision was based on the lack of valid evidence that the accused participated in the incident or that he held any position which would have enabled him to issue orders with respect to the incident.


<< first < prev   page 63 of 133   next > last >>