skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: amnesty international canada bccla canada chief defence staff

> Refine results with advanced case search

608 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 73 of 122   next > last >>

Sedyono et al.: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Col. Herman Sedyono et al.

Indictment, 8 Apr 2003, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor

Following the decision of the Indonesian government taken in early 1999 to offer East Timor the opportunity to vote for independence or for autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia, violence erupted in East Timor. The defendants in this case took part in a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians that were in favour of an independent East Timor. One of the accused, Herman Sedyono, was the Bupati (District Administrator) of the Covalima District, one of the 13 districts in East Timor. As such, he was bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the region. Most of the other accused were Commander or just member of the Indonesian security authorities (TNI) or the Indonesian police force (POLRI), which were both promoting autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia.

In 1999, the Mahidi and the Laksaur pro-Indonesian militia groups, with the help of the TNI and POLRI, and with support from the Covalima District administration, repeatedly committed attacks against the Covalima population (mainly against those that were in favour of independence). The attacks involved crimes such as unlawful arrests, destruction of property, detention, and murder. The 16 accused were charged with encouraging, assisting and failing to stop, arrest or prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes.


Morina: War Crimes Prosecutor v. Sinan Morina

Indictment, 13 Jul 2005, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro

Sinan Morina is an ethnic Kosovo Albanian and was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during the non-international armed conflict between the KLA, on one side, and the police and military units of the SFR Yugoslavia, on the other. He was charged with participating, together with 34 members of KLA, in the killing of nine Serbian men, expulsion, imprisonment, torture and rape of Serbian civilians, and large-scale destruction of civilian property and religious objects (Orthodox churches St. Spas and St. Nikola) in the village of Opteruša between 17 and 21 July 1998. The purpose of this armed attack was to ethnically cleanse the area from all non-Albanian population and create an ethnically pure Albanian territory.

Morina was acquitted by the Belgrade District Court on 20 December 2007 due to lack of credible evidence. The Supreme Court of Serbia reversed the verdict of the War Crimes Court in 2009 and ordered a re-trial. He was arrested in Croatia on 24 February 2010 following an international arrest warrant issued by the Serbian authorities.


South African Apartheid Litigation: Khulumani et al. v. Barclays National Bank et al., and Lungisile Ntsbeza et al v. Daimler AG et al.

Opinion, 12 Oct 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. Whereas the District Court in first instance had granted the corporations’ motion to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed. The District Court had ruled that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for jurisdiction. The majority of the panel disagreed, though for different reasons: one judge relied on international law to substantiate this, another solely relied on national law. A third judge dissented, arguing that this case should not be allowed to proceed, among other things because of fierce opposition from both South Africa and the US.


Jurišić: Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor v. Ilija Jurišić

Indictment, 9 Nov 2007, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro

Ilija Jurišić was a member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina police reserve forces as well as a high-ranking commander in the Tuzla-based State Security Operational Centre. Later, Jurišić exercised control over all armed troops deployed over the territory of Tuzla. In the latter function, Jurišić allegedly ordered his subordinates to attack a column of soldiers of the Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA) on 5 May 1992, while this convoy had just started to withdraw from Tuzla. As a result of this attack, at least 92 JNA soldiers were killed and more than 30 others were injured.


Bagaragaza: Public Prosecutor v. Michel Bagaragaza

Request for surrender, 21 Mar 2008, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

Until July 1994, Michel Bagaragaza was the managing director of OCIR-Tea, the controlling body for the tea industry in Rwanda. Bagaragaza is accused of conspiring with his employees in order to kill Tutsis in the Gisenyi Prefecture. In addition, he was a member of the local committee of the Republican Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND) for the Gisenyi Prefecture. Bagaragaza was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on charges of genocide, and in the alternative, war crimes. His case was referred to The Netherlands at the request of the Prosecutor of the ICTR.

However, a decision of the District Court of The Hague in a case against another Rwandan national, Joseph Mpambara, in which the Court held that the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over genocide committed by non-Dutch nationals abroad prior to 2003, was released soon after Bagaragaza's surrender to The Netherlands. Fearing that the outcome would be the same and the case against him would not proceed in The Netherlands, the ICTR requested The Netherlands to surrender Bagaragaza back to the ICTR for prosecution. By a decision of 21 March 2008, the District Court of The Hague authorised the surrender. 


<< first < prev   page 73 of 122   next > last >>