683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 74 of
137
next >
last >>
Brima et al.: The Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu
Sentencing Judgment , 19 Jul 2007, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Trial Chamber II), Sierra Leone
The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) represented the rebel opposition group to the government of President Kabbah who was overthrown following a coup by the AFRC and Revolutionary United Front, the RUF, which formed a military junta to rule the people of Sierra Leone.
Brima, Kamara and Kanu were members of the AFRC, convicted by Trial Chamber II for commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Their crimes were characterised by a particular brutality: children were abducted from their homes, drugged and recruited as child soldiers; young women were raped and sexually assaulted; civilians had limbs amputated; others still were beaten and beheaded. The Trial Chamber imposed a sentence of 50 years each on Brima and Kanu, and 45 years for Kamara. In reaching this determination, the Chamber took into account the large number of victims, their particular vulnerability, the brutality of the crimes, the positions of authority occupied by the Accused. It found there to be no mitigating circumstances in favour of any of the Accused.
T.: The Prosecution Service v. T.
Order of the Supreme Court of Denmark, 26 Apr 2012, Supreme Court of Denmark, Denmark
A Rwandan national who had lived in exile in Denmark under a false name was brought before a Danish court for committing genocide, namely heading a death squad and participating in the slaughter of 25,000 Tutsis in a Rwandan town in 1994.
The Danish Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the 1955 Genocide Act permitted Danish courts to prosecute persons accused of genocide, even where the genocide was not committed in Denmark and the Accused was not a Danish national. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of two lower courts and found that the charge of genocide in Rwanda by a Rwandan national could be raised before Danish courts indeed. The wording of the 1955 Genocide Act made genocide a criminal offense in Denmark, even if it was committed outside Denmark; moreover, Danish law did not require the accused to be a Danish national. It suffices that genocide is a crime both under Danish and Rwandan law: therefore, T. could be prosecuted before a Danish court
Babić: The Prosecutor v. Milan Babić
Judgement on Sentencing Appeals, 18 Jul 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK.
On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I issued its judgment. It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić appealed.
The Appeals Chamber rejected his grounds of appeal: the Trial Chamber had given due consideration to the facts and circumstances, including the mitigating and aggravating factors, and since it is not bound by any agreement between parties, it did not err in not following the requested sentence. The fact that one mitigating factor (the post-conflic efforts to further peace) were wrongly disregarded, did not make the overall sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment unfair
Mihaljević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Zdravko Mihaljević
Second Instance Verdict, 16 Jun 2011, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Roy M. Belfast, Jr.: United States of America v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 15 Jul 2010, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, United States
Mr. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. (“Charles Taylor Jr.”), the first individual to be prosecuted under the Torture Act and the son of Former Liberian President and convicted war criminal Charles Taylor, was arrested and indicted in Florida, U.S., in December 2006 following a joint Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) / Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation.
In the indictment, Belfast was charged for his role in numerous acts of torture and other atrocities in Liberia between 1999 and 2003 while he was the commander of the States Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU). After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses describing the torture that the defendant had subjected them to, a jury convicted him on all counts and he was sentenced to 97 years in prison.
In 2010, he appealed that conviction before the United States Eleventh Circuit, arguing that Congress impermissibly expanded the prohibitions of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) through the Torture Act and that the Torture Act and U.S. firearms Statutes, under which he was convicted, could not apply to acts committed in Liberia before Liberia became a State Party to the CAT.
The Court rejected all of his arguments and upheld the conviction, finding that the U.S. Torture Act validly enacted CAT and he was convicted in line with the Constitution.
<< first
< prev
page 74 of
137
next >
last >>