460 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 80 of
92
next >
last >>
Ndindabahizi: Emmanuel Ndindabahizi v. The Prosecutor
Judgement, 16 Jan 2007, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
The Accused, Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, was Minister of Finance of the Interim Government of Rwanda from 9 April 1994 until he left Rwanda on 13 or 14 July 1994.
On 15 July 2004, Trial Chamber I found Ndindabaizi guilty of one count of genocide and two counts of crimes against humanity (extermination and murder) for his role in the events at Gitwa Hill and at the Gaseke roadblock. Ndindabahizi appealed against his convictions and his sentence.
The Appeals Chamber upheld Ndindabahizi's convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his participation in the events at Gitwa Hill in late April 1994 which resulted in the death of thousands of Tutsi. The Chamber reversed the convictions for genocide and murder in relation to the killing of one victim at Gaseke roadblock. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber underlined that Ndindabahizi's criminal responsibility had to be determined according to the entirety of his contribution to the Rwandan genocide. Hence the Chamber unanimously held that his acquittal for the murder of one victim did not diminish the gravity of his actions and it confirmed the life sentence imposed on him.
Bralo: The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo
Judgment on Sentencing Appeal, 2 Apr 2007, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
Between April and July 1993 the village of Ahmići (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and its surroundings were subjected to an ethnic cleansing targeting the Muslim population. Miroslav Bralo, also known as “Cicko”, actively participated in these attacks as a member of a unit of the Croatian Defence Council. He pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity and war crimes and Trial Chamber III, subsequently, found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment.
Bralo appealed the sentencing judgment of 7 December 2005, challenging Trial Chamber III's assessment of the factors which guided it in determining the final sentence.
Bralo adduced three grounds of appeal. In the first one he argued that Trial Chamber III made an error when it classified certain factors as irrelevant to his sentence. The second ground challenged the Chamber's assessment of the factors which it did take into consideration as relevant for Bralo's sentence. In the last ground, Bralo claimed that Trial Chamber III did not reduce his sentence adequately, considering the volume and relevance of the mitigating circumstances.
The Appeals Chamber did not find any error in the findings of Trial Chamber III and dismissed all three grounds of Bralo's appeal. Subsequently, his sentence of 20 years was affirmed.
Van Anraat: Public Prosecutor v. Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat
Judgment, 9 May 2007, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
Frans van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer.
The Dutch Prosecutor brought a case against Van Anraat. The District Court of the Hague acquitted him of the charge of complicity to genocide (because his genocidal intent could not be proved), but he was convicted of complicity in war crimes and the court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal of The Hague upheld the District Court’s acquittal on the charge of complicity to genocide and his conviction of complicity to war crimes. The Court increased Van Anraat’s sentence to 17 years’ imprisonment.
Muhimana: Mikaeli Muhimana v. The Prosecutor
Judgement, 21 May 2007, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Mikaeli Muhimana was the conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye Prefecture from 1990 through the genocide in 1994. On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted Muhimana of genocide and crimes against humanity for instigating, committing, and abetting numerous crimes between April and June 1994 at various locations in Kibuye Prefecture. The Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.
By majority the Appeals Chamber allowed only two of Muhimana’s sixteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence. The Appeals Chamber unanimously determined, however, that these errors did not invalidate any of Muhimana’s convictions and sentences for rape and murder given his numerous other crimes, including his role in five other killings and ten other rapes. The Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissed Muhimana’s remaining fourteen grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber confirmed the Accused’s convictions for genocide, rape and murder as crimes against humanity, as well as his sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
Mpambara: Public Prosecutor v. Joseph Mpambara
Interlocutory Decision, 24 Jul 2007, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.
Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.
By a decision of 24 July 2007, the District Court of The Hague determined that it did not have jurisdiction to try the Accused for crimes of genocide as it lacked a statutory basis to do so. Further, it could not exercise indirect jurisdiction as one of the three criteria set out in the Dutch Penal Code was not met.
<< first
< prev
page 80 of
92
next >
last >>