474 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 82 of
95
next >
last >>
El Hage et al.: United States of America v. Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-’Owhali, Wadih El Hage
Appeals Decision, 24 Nov 2008, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Unites States of America, United States
Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalised American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organiser of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans.
On 29 May 2001, El Hage was convicted for conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees engaging in official duties and conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States. In addition, he was found guilty of giving false statements to a federal jury (perjury). On the basis of this conviction, El Hage was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of being released.
On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of El Hage and returned the judgment for reconsideration of the sentence because the District Court made procedural errors. El Hage was sentenced again to life imprisonment.
John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.
Memorandum Opinion, 30 Sep 2009, 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 dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.
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.
Boškoski & Tarčulovski: Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski
Judgment (public), 19 May 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
On 12 August 2001 the village of Ljuboten, located in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), was attacked. The police killed ethnic Albanians and set fire to homes in the village. Ljube Boškoski was the Minister of the Interior of the FYROM while Johan Tarčulovski was a police officer. For their role and participation in these events, they were brought before Trial Chamber II of the ICTY. While Trial Chamber II acquitted Boškoski of the charges, it did find Tarčulovski guilty of war crimes.
Tarčulovski presented seven grounds of appeal to the Appeals Chamber, arguing that Trial Chamber II made incorrect interpretations of the law with regard to the elements of war crimes, his individual criminal responsibility and in considering evidence.
The Prosecution appealed the acquittal of Boškoski on the ground that he should have been held responsible for his failure to punish his subordinates for committing the crimes at Ljuboten.
However, the Appeals Chamber disagreed with both the Accused and the Prosecution; Tarčulovski's sentencing was upheld, and so was Boškoski's acquital.
Delić: The Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić (AC)
Decision on the Outcome of the Proceedings (public), 29 Jun 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands
On 15 September 2008, Trial Chamber I found Delić guilty of war crimes for his role in the events in the Livade and Kamenica Camps between July and August 1995. Delić appealed the decision but died before the Appeals Chamber could issue a judgment on his appeal.
The Chamber was faced with two questions. First, whether the death of Delić will terminate the appeals proceedings, and second, whether this termination will render the Trial Chamber's initial judgment final.
With regard to the first issue, the Chamber found that it only has jurisdiction when the persons before it are natural persons which implies that they are alive. This means that the death of the appellant will terminate the appeal. As concerns the second issue, now that no appeal judgment could be rendered in this trial because of the death of the appellant, the trial judgment remains in force.
<< first
< prev
page 82 of
95
next >
last >>