350 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 64 of
70
next >
last >>
Selliaha/Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE): The Prosecutor v. Selliaha/Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Judgment given after full argument on both sides, 21 Oct 2011, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
Five men, allegedly members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, a rebel group in Sri Lanka), were brought before the District Court of the Hague (the Netherlands) on charges of, among others, extortion, money laundering, and raising funds for a terrorist organization. The European Union (EU) placed the LTTE on a list of terrorist organizations in 2006. The present judgment was handed down against one of the suspects, identified only as Selliaha, who acted as the LTTE’s overseas bookkeeper.
The five men, including Selliaha, allegedly extorted millions of Euros through blackmails and threats in order to fund the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
The District Court found Selliaha guilty of invlovement with a criminal organization, but not of supporting terrorism. Furthermore, the District Court considered that the conflict in Sri Lanka amounts to a non-international armed conflict, but dismissed a large number of charges on the basis that the Netherlands was not party to the conflict. Moreover, the District Court ruled that the EU’s classification of the LTTE as a banned organization, made the fundraising operations unlawful in the Netherlands.
The District Court acquitted Selliaha of extortion but convicted him of threatening prospective donators. Selliaha was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment, the longest sentence of the five accused.
RMS v. The Netherlands: Government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) v. The Netherlands
Uitspraak, 22 Nov 2011, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had planned a visit to the Netherlands from 6 to 8 October 2010. The government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) filed a complaint in the Netherlands and requested the Indonesian President to be arrested upon arrival in the Netherlands, and furthermore, that he would be prosecuted for human rights violations committed against Moluccan detainees.
On 14 October 2010, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the case because President Yudhoyono as head of state could not be prosecuted (head of state immunity).
On 22 November 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
Ndahimana: The Prosecutor v. Grégoire Ndahimana
Judgement and Sentence, 30 Dec 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber II), Tanzania
Grégoire Ndahimana was Mayor of Kivumu commune (community)in Rwanda in April 1994. Following the death of President Habyarimana, a common plan was realised in Kivumu commune. The purpose of this plan was to exterminate the Tutsis who lived there.
After the President’s death, one to two thousand Tutsi civilians sought refuge at Nyange parish. Only a very small number of these civilians survived the attacks on the parish that occurred on 15 and 16 April 1994.
The Prosecutor of the ICTR charged Ndahimana with genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his role in the massacres of Tutsis that took place in Kivumu commune over ten days from 6 April 1994 to 16 April 1994. He was found guilty of genocide and extermination by aiding and abetting as well as by virtue of his command responsibility over the communal police. Ndahimana was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.
Both the Prosecution and the Defence have lodged appeals against the judgment.
Krasniqi et al.: The Prosecutor v. Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi, Fatmir Limaj and Naser Shala
Judgment, 2 May 2012, District Court of Pristina, Kosovo
In early 1998, escalating ethnic tensions and violence led to the break out of an armed conflict in Kosovo between Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Serbian and Albanian civilians were perceived as non-cooperative by the KLA and were subsequently targeted for intimidation, imprisonment, violence and murder. A number of Serbian military prisoners as well as Albanian civilian prisoners were detained at the Klecka detention centre by the KLA in inhumane conditions, exposed to cold, without adequate sanitation or proper nutrition. Prisoners were frequently beaten and a number amongst them were executed and their bodies buried in mass graves nearby.
Fatmir Limaj, Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi and Naser Shala were all KLA members; Limaj was the commander of the 121st Brigade. They were indicted by the Special Prosecutor for war crimes and stood trial before the District Court of Pristina, operating under European Union supervision in Kosovo. All Accused were acquitted by the District Court.
On appeal however, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of all accused and held that key evidence from Limaj’s deputy who had died in Germany the previous year would be admissible in the new trial.
Zentai: Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v. Zentai
Order, 15 Aug 2012, High Court of Australia, Australia
Charles Zentai is an Australian citizen, who is accused of involvement in the killing of a young Jewish man, Mr Balazs, in Budapest in November 1944. The young man was not wearing his yellow star, upon which Zentai allegedly dragged him to an army post and, with others, beat him to death.
In 2005 the Republic of Hungary asked Australia to extradite Charles Zentai. In 1944, there was no offence of war crime in the Hungarian Criminal Code. Although murder was a crime in the National Code in 1944, the Republic of Hungary did not seek the accused’s surrender for prosecution for murder, but for war crime.
On 12 November 2006, the Minister determined that the accused was to be surrendered to the Republic of Hungary. A judge of the Federal Court and later on the Full Court of the Federal Court required that the accused should be released.
On 15 August 2012, the High Court determined that the Minister could not extradite the accused, because the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary determines that extradition may only take place for a crime that was an offence in the Requesting State at the time the acts constituting it occurred.
<< first
< prev
page 64 of
70
next >
last >>