skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: rigoberta menchu rios montt 'guatemala genocide case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

662 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 80 of 133   next > last >>

Vuković: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Radmilo Vuković aka Rade

Verdict, 13 Aug 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Radmilo Vuković was born on 28 July 1952 in the village of Rataje located in the municipality of Foča, southeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. In his capacity as member of the military forces of the so-called Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as “Republika Srpska”, Vuković allegedly had sexual intercourse with a woman from the Foča municipality without her consent. On 13 August 2008, the Appeals Panel of the War Crimes section of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not find Vuković guilty, because the main piece of evidence provided by the victim and presented before the Appellate Panel contained inconsistencies. Therefore, it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that Vuković raped the woman.


John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

Memorandum and Opinion, 27 Aug 2008, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 


Delić: Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić (TC)

Judgment (public), 15 Sep 2008, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands

In 1992, the so-called Mujahedin forces joined the military struggle of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Serbian forces. During three incidents between 1993 and 1995, the Mujahedin forces maltreated and killed both civilians and soldiers of the adversaries. 

Trial Chamber I found that these acts amounted to war crimes in the meaning of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute. 

When considering whether Rasim Delić could be held responsible for failing to prevent and punish these crimes, the Chamber found that he was guilty only with respect to the cruel treatment of captured Serb soldiers during the Livade incident. It found Delić not guilty with respect to the incident of Bikoši due to the lack of superior-subordinate relationship between those who committed the crimes and Delic. Responsibility for the last incident – in Kesten – was also rejected due to Delić's lack of reason to know that the crimes were about to be committed. 

Delić received a sentence of three years of imprisonment.


Repak: The Public Prosecuting Authority v. Mirsad Repak

Judgment, 2 Dec 2008, Oslo District Court, Norway

In 1992, Mirsad Repak was a member of the paramilitary Croatian Defence Forces (HOS), in the Dretelj detention camp, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Repak held a middle leader position in the unit. Serbian civilians were detained in the Dretelj camp and held in inhuman conditions, suffering mistreatment and rape. Repak assisted in depriving civilian Serbs of their liberty and was also involved in the interrogation and torture of a woman detained in the camp.

In 1993, Repak fled to Norway and became a Norwegian citizen in 2001. On 8 May 2007, he was arrested in Norway and indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The case concerned the question whether the Norwegian Constitution allows the retroactive application of the legislation on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court observed that Article 97 of the Norwegian Constitution prohibits any retroactive application of the law unless similar legislation existed at the time of the alleged crimes. The Court ruled that prosecution was possible since the actions described in the indictment were punishable under the Criminal Code in force in 1992 (the time of the crimes). Repak was therefore found guilty of war crimes, but was acquitted for the charges of crimes against humanity, as there was no comparable legislation in 1992. Repak was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay damages of a total of NKO 400,000 (approximately 51,000 euro) to the families of eight Serbian victims.


Amnesty International Canada v. Canada: Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Appellants) v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada (Respondents)

Appeal Judgment, 17 Dec 2008, Federal Court of Appeal, Canada

At the beginning of 2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.

On 21 February 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.

The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2008.


<< first < prev   page 80 of 133   next > last >>