725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 85 of
145
next >
last >>
Lozano v. Italy: Mario Luiz Lozano v. the General Prosecutor for the Italian Republic
Sentenza, 24 Jul 2008, Supreme Court of Cassation, First Criminal Chamber, Italy
Stevanovic: The Prosecutor's Office v. Miladin Stevanovic
Verdict, 29 Jul 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.
These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. The Court states that in a case of genocide, a distinction must be made between those who conceived and directed the acts of genocide (referred to as a joint criminal enterprise) and the common soldiers. Where the former group can be held accountable for all crimes that ensued, the latter group is only responsible for the acts they physically participated in. However, after the Court reviewed several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven; the Court acquitted him from all charges.
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.
Andrun: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nikola Andrun
Verdict, 19 Aug 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nikola Andrun, born on 22 November 1957, was during the second half of 1993 a deputy head of the Gabela detention camp in the municipality of Čapljina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) where Bosniak civilians were detained. As deputy head, Andrun took detainees out of the Gabela detention camp on several occasions and subjected them to interrogations, beatings and acts of torture. Between July and September 1993, numerous incidents of detainee abuse took place during which Andrun was present, either as an observer or as a direct participant. Some of the detainees disappeared but their remains were later exhumed and identified.
Andrun was found guilty for war crimes against Bosniak civilians and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
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.
<< first
< prev
page 85 of
145
next >
last >>