608 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 7 of
122
next >
last >>
Ntabakuze: Aloys Ntabakuze v. The Prosecutor
Judgement, 8 May 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Aloys Ntabakuze is an ex-Commander of the Rwandan Para-Commando Battalion. On 18 December 2008 the Tribunal found him guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, namely murder, extermination, persecution and other inhumane acts, and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life). He appealed the judgment on 37 grounds. The Appeals Chamber agreed with the Trial Chamber’s ruling that Ntabakuze was guilty as a superior for the participation of members of the Para-Commando Battalion in the killings committed at Nyanza hill on 11 April 1994 and at IAMSEA around 15 April 1994. However, the Chamber reversed Ntabazuke’s convictions for stopping the refugees killed at Nyanza hill from seeking sanctuary and for the killings in Kabeza on 7 and 8 April 1994, as well as for murder as a crime against humanity. The Appeals Chamber also set aside the Trial Chamber’s finding of Ntabakuze’s responsibility for the crimes committed by militiamen. Thus, his sentence to life imprisonment was reversed and he was sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment instead.
R. v. Hamdan: Regina v. Othman Ayed Hamdan
Oral Reasons for Judgment, 22 Sep 2017, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Canada
Palestinian refugee Othman Ayed Hamdan was charged after posting on various Facebook accounts and pages regarding Middle East politics, particularly supporting ISIS presence in Iraq and Syria. He believed he was carrying out jihad, meaning struggle. The charges arose from 85 posts from Facebook accounts and pages. To prove the elements of the crime, the Crown had to prove two things: 1) that posts were likely to incite a reader to commit a terrorist act and 2) that Hamdan intended to incite his audience.
The Court determined that a reasonable person would find only one of the posts to be an active inducement to commit a terrorist act; however, the court also determined that the Crown could not prove Hamdan intended to induce a reader beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Court did not find Hamdan’s testimony on his intent credible, the court acquitted him because there was reasonable doubt.
Khadr: United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr
Verdict, 31 Oct 2010, Military Commission, United States
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was 15 years old when he was captured and seriously injured in a firefight in Afghanistan on 27 July 2002. The US accused Khadr of throwing a grenade that killed US Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer and injured two others. He was charged with murder and attempted murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying.
On 25 October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying, and was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment.
In spite of Khadr's young age at the time of his capture, the United States imprisoned him together with adults.
Khadr was the first person since World War II to be prosecuted in a military commission for war crimes committed while still a minor. His conviction and sentence were widely denounced by civil rights groups and various newspaper editorials. He has been frequently referred to as a child soldier.
Al-Skeini and others: Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals)
Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, 13 Jun 2007, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)
The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).
Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Judgment, 7 Jun 2006, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.
On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. The District Court acquitted Kouwenhoven of war crimes in first instance, stating that the link between him and those who actually committed the crimes was insufficiently substantiated. However, Kouwenhoven was convicted for his involvement in illegally supplying Taylor with weapons. According to the Court there was sufficient evidence that ships, owned by the OTC, within which Kouwenhoven held a prominent position, shipped weapons into the port of Buchanan, which was managed by OTC. These acts, the Court reasoned, did not only violate Dutch laws but also the international legal order. Given the serious consequences of supplying the Taylor regime with weapons, Kouwenhoven was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment: the maximum sentence.
<< first
< prev
page 7 of
122
next >
last >>