473 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 7 of
95
next >
last >>
Prosecutor v. Omar H
Judgment, 31 May 2016, Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Netherlands
In May 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Omar H, a foreign fighter convicted of training for terrorism. In upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided that training for terrorism in this context would be interpreted broadly. Thus, researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s other interests in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed Omar H’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
Polyukhovich v. Australia: Polyukhovich v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Another
Order, 14 Aug 1991, High Court of Australia, Australia
Ivan Timofeyevich Polyukhovich was born in the village of Serniki in the Pinsk region, Ukraine. Polyukhovich became an Australian citizen in 1958. In January 1990, a case was brought against Polyukhovich in Australia for his alleged involvement in the mass killing of approximately 850 people from the Jewish ghetto in Serniki village and for killing 24 other people between August and September 1942. Their bodies had been exhumed in June and July 1990. On 18 May 1993, Polyukhovich was acquitted because there was not sufficient evidence to continue with the case.
German Piracy Trial
Urteil, 19 Oct 2012, Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg), Germany
On 5 April 2010, ten Somalis attacked the Taipan, a container ship sailing under the German flag off the Horn of Africa. The Dutch naval forces arrested the Somalis and, on 10 June 2010, transferred them to Germany. The trial commenced on 22 November 2010, representing the country’s first piracy trial in 400 years.
On 19 October 2012, the Hamburg Regional Court found the Somalis guilty and handed down sentences ranging between two and seven years.
Chessani: United States of America v. Jeffrey Chessani
Finding Pursuant to Article 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 17 Jun 2008, United States Navy-Marines Corps Court Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ), United States
What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.
However, by the time the Navy-Marine Corps Court Trial Judiciary rendered a judgment, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCTJ ruled that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of “unlawful command influence”. According to the NMCTJ, the presence of someone with Ewers’ reputation, who had strong views regarding Chessani’s guilt, could have influenced the prosecutor and legal advisers. Therefore, charges against him were dismissed.
Haagse Stadspartij et al.: De Haagse Stadspartij et al. v. The Netherlands
Verdict, 5 Apr 2005, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
A group of Dutch individuals and organisations filed a claim against the Netherlands asking for the arrest of George W. Bush. The proceedings were filed in advance of Bush’s visit to the Netherlands in his capacity as US President.
The American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) allows the US to invade Dutch territory to liberate American or Israeli military personnel in the event that they are detained by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The petitioners said that such an incursion might result in many casualties and would violate international law. Therefore, they claimed that the ASPA constitutes a threat against the Netherlands, its citizens, and the ICC, and had to be assigned to George W. Bush.
On 5 April 2005, the District Court dismissed the case. The Court held that it cannot hear cases presenting political questions. In addition, the Court held that it could not prosecute George W. Bush because he enjoyed immunity as head of state.
<< first
< prev
page 7 of
95
next >
last >>