skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: g extradition to india

> Refine results with advanced case search

692 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 71 of 139   next > last >>

Abebe-Jira v. Negewo

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 10 Jan 1996, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, United States

Hirute Abebe-Jira, EdgeGayehu Taye and Elizabeth Demissie were victims of the so-called “Red Terror” campaign in Ethiopia directed by Mengistu Haile Mariam during his dictatorship in the mid-1970s. The three women were questioned, beaten, threatened and ordered to undress during their illegal detention. The women brought a complaint against Kelbessa Negewo who personally supervised and participated in the interrogations and torture of the women. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found Kelbessa Negewo guilty and ordered him to pay $500,000 in damages to the three women. Negewo appealed. On 10 January 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.


Erdemović: The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović

Sentencing Judgment (after Referral), 5 Mar 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

On 6 July 1995, the Srebrenica enclave (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked by the Bosnian Serb Army. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the women and children and, subsequently, taken to various sites where they were executed. Erdemović was a member of a unit of the Bosnian Serb Army, and participated in the killing of Bosnian Muslim men who were taken to the Pilica farm, situated near Zvornik (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Erdemović pleaded guilty to murder, first as a crime against humanity. Later, the Appeals Chamber ordered that he be allowed to replead before a new Trial Chamber, during which he pleaded guilty to murder as a war crime. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors. 

The magnitude of the crimes at the Pilica farm (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Erdemović’s role in them were considered as aggravating circumstances. Turning to the mitigating circumstances, Trial Chamber II took into consideration Erdemović’s personal circumstances, his admission of guilt, his expression of remorse, and his cooperation with the Prosecution. Trial Chamber II found that Erdemović committed the crimes under duress, that is, in fear that he would be killed should he disobey the orders to kill the Bosnian Muslims. Accordingly, Trial Chamber II considered this as a mitigating factor. 

Erdemović was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. 


Kupreškić et al.: The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, Vladimir Šantić, also known as “Vlado”

Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands

Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, and Vladimir Šantić were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim population of the village of Ahmići in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In April 1993, the Bosnian Croat forces attacked the village, aiming to remove the Muslim inhabitants through the commission of crimes against them. The attack resulted in the deaths of over a hundred Muslim inhabitants, numerous others were wounded and Muslim houses and mosques were destroyed.

Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the attack on Ahmići was targeting the Muslim civilians with the aim to spread terror among them and assure that they will never return to their homes.

Dragan Papić was acquitted of the charges of persecutions (as a crime against humanity) due to insufficient evidence to sustain that he participated in the attacks.

Trial Chamber II found Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, and Vladimir Šantić guilty of persecution (as a crime against humanity). Furthermore, Josipović and Šantić were found guilty of murder and inhumane acts (both as crimes against humanity).

Trial Chamber II handed down sentences ranging between 6 and 25 years of imprisonment.


Sawoniuk: United Kingdom v. Sawoniuk

Judgment, 10 Feb 2000, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Great Britain (UK)

Anthony Sawoniuk was born in what is now Belarus, and was a convicted Nazi collaborator who took part in the murder of Jews during WWII. Sawoniuk later moved to the United Kingdom where he became a British citizen, this is why the War Crimes Act could be applied to his case. In the UK Sawoniuk lived freely until his name was found on a KGB list of war criminals in 1993.

After being put on trial for war crimes (murder) against Jews in Domachevo, Sawoniuk was found guilty by a jury in the Old Bailey on two charges and sentenced to life in prison. Sawoniuk appealed this judgment, arguing that the trial contained errors in law, and was therefore not a fair trial. It was mostly asserted, for several reasons, that the two eyewitnesses that were the primary evidence for his conviction were not truthful, and hence that the trial was based on unreliable and insufficient evidence. However, on 10 February 2000, the Court dismissed his appeal, judging that sufficient measures were taken by the trial judge to ensure a fair trial. In 2005 Sawoniuk died while in prison.


Sumner v. UK: Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Others

Judgment No. [2000] SASC 91, 13 Apr 2000, Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff had already sought (and failed to find) two interlocutory injunctions to prevent a bridge from being built to Hindmarsh in South Australia. It was held that this construction would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. The judge did not agree that the construction would amount to genocide and reiterated earlier judgments that genocide was not a criminal act under Australian law. Treaties are not a direct source of law in Australia, and neither is customary international law.

In 2002, with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.


<< first < prev   page 71 of 139   next > last >>