692 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 77 of
139
next >
last >>
Marić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Zoran Marić
First instance verdict, 29 Oct 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Zoran Marić, a former soldier in the Army of Republika Srpska, was indicted by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) on suspicion of involvement in war crimes committed in 1992, during the armed conflict between the Army of Republika Srpska and, on the other hand, BiH and the Croatian Defense Council (HVO). Marić was charged with co-perpetration – together with fellow soldiers – of torture, inhumane treatment and murder of Bosniak civilians. Although he initially pleaded not guilty, he came to a plea agreement with the prosecutor, pleading guilty to the crimes he was indicted for. The Court of BiH, after evaluating the evidence, found the agreement acceptable and sentenced Marić to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Stevanovic: The Prosecutor's Office v. Miladin Stevanovic
Appeal Verdict, 9 Nov 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.
These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. In first instance, the Court acquitted Stevanovic. After hearing several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about it and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven.
The Prosecutor appealed the decision, arguing that the Court had wrongly considered certain facts (error in fact) and that it had wrongly abstained from labelling certain conduct - namely, Stevanovic's participation in securing the road - as criminal (error in law). However, the Appellate Panel disagreed, dismissed the appeal and affirmed Stevanovic's acquittal.
Doe et al. v. Constant: Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III v. Emmanuel Constant, a/k/a Toto Constant
Summary Order, 1 Dec 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States
Emmanuel Constant was born on 27 October 1956 in Haiti. He was the founder of the Revolutionary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), a death squad that terrorised supporters of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was overthrown in September 1991. Members of the FRAPH killed, put in prison, and abused supporters of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during the military regime that ruled Haiti between September 1991 and October 1994. Constant, as the leader of FRAPH, was convicted and found guilty for crimes committed during the military regime. He was ordered to pay $19 million in damages to three women who survived the crimes committed under Constant’s control.
Ameziane: Djamel Ameziane v. Barack Obama et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-00392-UNA), 8 Jan 2010, United States Court of Appeals, United States
Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. In 2005, he filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the person to challenge the legality of his/her detention). In May 2009, the US Government filed a motion requesting the designation as ‘protected’ (meaning that it can be shared only with the counsel of the detainee and the Court) of the decision of the Guantanamo Review Task Force approving Ameziane for a transfer from Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).
On 30 June 2009, the District Court denied the request of the US Government since the Government failed to explain why the disclosure of “this one piece of information”, referring to the Task Force decision, would be harmful.
On 8 January 2010, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned this decision on the grounds that the District Court applied inappropriately the standard for determining whether the Task Force decision should be designated as ‘protected’. The Court of Appeals considered that the US Government has met the required standard and, therefore, the District Court should have granted its motion for designation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision.
Bensayah v. Obama: Belkacem Bensayah v. Barack Obama et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 28 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
Belkacem Bensayah, an Algerian national, was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovine in 2001 on the suspicion of plotting an attack against the United States Embassy in Sarajevo. Together with five other Algerians, Bensayah was turned over to the United States Government and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). Bensayah was one of the plaintiffs in the Boumediene case, in the context of which, the Supreme Court of the United States found, in 2008, that Guantanamo detainees have a right to petition writs of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detainees to challenge the legality of their detention).
In November 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of five of the six plaintiffs. Bensayah, the sixth plaintiff, was denied release.
On 28 June 2010, the District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court, finding that the evidence against Bensayah must be reviewed since the Government changed its position and the evidence upon which the District Court relied in concluding that Bensayah supported the Al-Qaeda is now insufficient to show that he was also part of the organization.
<< first
< prev
page 77 of
139
next >
last >>