710 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 8 of
142
next >
last >>
Ahmetašević case
Judgment, 5 Jun 2009, District Court of The Hague (Extradition Division), The Netherlands
In November 1993, Senad Ahmetašević, former member of a National Defense unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina, killed a prisoner of war in the Omica Brdo region. On 13 March 2007, the Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the extradition of Ahmetašević who resided in the Netherlands at the time. Ahmetašević opposed the extradition. On 5 June 2009, the District Court of The Hague approved the request for extradition. The Court held that the requirements for extradition were met and that there was no fear that Ahmetašević would not enjoy fair trial rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mandić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Momčilo Mandić
Second instance verdict, 1 Sep 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Momčilo Mandić, who was Assistant Minister of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in April 1996, was indicted before the Court of BiH in 2006 on allegations of involvement in war crimes against civilians and crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflicts that broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, and which lasted until 1995. Mandić was accused of directing the attack against the Training Centre for Personnel of the BiH Ministry of Interior – one of the events that sparked the war – and of ordering (or at least failing to take reasonable measures against) subordinates to detain and mistreat several non-Serb civilians.
Mandić was acquitted by the Court in first instance, as it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had been involved in these acts, and neither could it be established that he was, indeed, a superior with the possibility to either order such acts to be committed or to take measures against subordinates who were about to or had committed the acts. The prosecution appealed, but to no avail; on 1 September 2009, the Appellate Panel upheld the acquittal.
Gotovina & Markač: Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač
Judgement, 16 Nov 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
In August 1995, the Croatian forces conducted a rapid offensive attack against the Krajina region of Croatia which had the purpose of removing ethnic Serbs, and make the region suitable for Croats instead. Both Gotovina and Markač were in a high military position that controlled the operation in Krajina.
Trial Chamber I found that both Gotovina and Markač had participated in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE, a mode of criminal responsibility in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal), which aimed to remove all Serbs from the Krajina region. Trial Chamber I found them guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes; General Gotovina received a 24 year sentence, while Markač received 18 years imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber considered that Trial Chamber I had erred in its analysis of the lawfulness of artillery attacks on four towns in Croatia. This error led the Appeals Chamber to reverse Trial Chamber I’s finding regarding the existence of a JCE to remove the Serb population from the Krajina region. This, in turn, resulted in the reversal of all convictions entered by Trial Chamber I under this mode of responsibility. Unable to enter convictions on any alternate modes of responsibility, the Appeals Chamber acquitted both Gotovina and Markač of all charges and ordered their immediate release.
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.
De Jesus: Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Paulino de Jesus
Final Judgement, 26 Jan 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 was characterised by the perpetration of a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly those suspected of being pro-independence supporters.
One such attack occurred on the village of Lourbs in September 1999 when members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various militias burnt down homes, and wounded and killed a number of persons. In the course of this attack, a young girl was abducted by TNI soldiers and stabbed through the back; her mother was shot through leg as she attempted to save her. The Prosecution alleged that the Accused, Paulino de Jesus, was responsible for the murder of the little girl and indirectly for the wounding of her mother although he is not alleged to have fired the shot.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes acquitted De Jesus on the grounds that the witness evidence did not establish with sufficient certainty either that he was present in the village at the time of the attack, or that he was the author of the charged crimes.
<< first
< prev
page 8 of
142
next >
last >>