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 83 of 133   next > last >>

Morlock: The Army Prosecutor v. Jeremy Morlock

Judgment, 23 Mar 2011, martial court, Washington, United States


Mihaljević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Zdravko Mihaljević

Second Instance Verdict, 16 Jun 2011, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina


Lalović & Škiljević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Radoje Lalović and Soniboj Škiljević

Verdict of the Appellate Panel, 5 Jul 2011, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Radoje Lalović was born on 15 July 1946 in the municipality of Kalinovik, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period between early May and mid-December 1992, Lalović was a warden at the Butmir Correctional and Penal Facility (KPD) in Kula, the Sarajevo municipality of Ilidža, which mostly functioned as a detention camp.

Soniboj Škiljević was born on 14 August 1948 in Izgori in the municipality of Gacko, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Škiljević served as a deputy warden at the Butmir Correctional and Penal Facility (KPD) in Kula, also in the period between early May and mid-December 1992.

Lalović and Škiljević were responsible for the functioning of the Butmir KPD and the actions of its guards. In 2001, they were not found guilty of charges that they, inter alia, ordered the killings, imprisonment, and torture of the detainees held at the Butmir KPD. Lalović and Škiljević were neither found guilty of the charges that even though they knew that the crimes were taking place, they did not prevent them or did punish the perpetrators.


Mutua et al. v. UK: Ndiki Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Susan Ngondi v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Approved Judgment, 21 Jul 2011, The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain (UK)

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this, while the British government argued that they could not be held responsible for atrocities which, if proven, were committed by the Colonial government in the 1950s. Therefore, the British government requested the Court to dismiss the case before it would come to a trial. The Court refused to do this, stating that evidence existed of torture in pre-independence Kenya and of some UK involvement. This evidence, the Court reasoned (without establishing the liability of the British government), should be assessed in Court. 


Ayyash et al: The Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al.

Decision to Hold Trial in Absentia, 1 Feb 2012, Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Trial Chamber), The Netherlands

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.


<< first < prev   page 83 of 133   next > last >>