669 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 64 of
134
next >
last >>
Metan: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes Against Domingos Metan
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 a suspected independence supporter and watched as two other militia members proceeded to stab and stone the victim who died as a result of his wounds. The Accused pleaded guilty to the crime of murder as a crime against humanity, and the Court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment.
Stankovic: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Radovan Stankovic
Verdict, 14 Nov 2006, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Radovan Stankovic, member of a Serb battalion during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), was initially indicted by the ICTY Prosecutor for his alleged involvement in crimes against humanity in 1996 and 1999. However, his case was ultimately referred to the Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2005.
He was charged with crimes against humanity, as he was accused of having set up a detention centre for (often underaged) women, having incited other soldiers to rape detainees, and having coerced several detainees into forced labour and sexual intercourse. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to determine that he was guilty of four of the six charges, stating that the statements were clear and consistent. Stankovic was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment on 14 November 2006.
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).
<< first
< prev
page 64 of
134
next >
last >>