skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: amnesty international canada bccla canada chief defence staff

> Refine results with advanced case search

613 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 8 of 123   next > last >>

Al-Skeini and others: Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals)

Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, 13 Jun 2007, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).


Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven

Judgment, 7 Jun 2006, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. The District Court acquitted Kouwenhoven of war crimes in first instance, stating that the link between him and those who actually committed the crimes was insufficiently substantiated. However, Kouwenhoven was convicted for his involvement in illegally supplying Taylor with weapons. According to the Court there was sufficient evidence that ships, owned by the OTC, within which Kouwenhoven held a prominent position, shipped weapons into the port of Buchanan, which was managed by OTC. These acts, the Court reasoned, did not only violate Dutch laws but also the international legal order. Given the serious consequences of supplying the Taylor regime with weapons, Kouwenhoven was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment: the maximum sentence. 


Bemba Case: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo

The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 21 Mar 2016, International Criminal Court (Trial Chamber III), The Netherlands

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations. 


Seifert: Italy v. Seifert

Sentenza (sentence), 24 Nov 2000, Military Tribunal of Verona (Tribunale Militare Di Verona ), Italy

At the end of World War II, Michael Seifert, a Ukrainian national who had joined the SS, served as a guard at the Bolzano transit concentration camp. Here, together with another Ukrainian national, and upon the orders (or with acquiescence) of his superior Cologna, he participated in the murder and unlawful killing of internees of the Bolzano camp. In 1951 Michael Seifert moved to Canada where he lived until he was extradited to Italy in 2008.

In 2000, when he was still living in Canada, he was tried in absentia by the Military Tribunal of Verona and charged with acts of violence and murder under Articles 13 and 185 of the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War. The Military Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to try the case, as the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War also applies to soldiers of the enemy’s armed forces and members of the SS (as Seifert was), are to be considered part of the Third Reich’s armed forces. The Tribunal rejected Seifert’s defence that he acted on orders of his superior, stating that the carrying out of superior orders is no defence to war crimes, as the order to commit such crimes is clearly unlawful and thus allows the subordinate to challenge it.

The Court found Seifert guilty of 11 murders and sentenced him to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.


R. v. UK: R (on the application of Smith) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and another

Judgment, 30 Jun 2010, Supreme Court, Great Britain (UK)


<< first < prev   page 8 of 123   next > last >>