skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: mothers srebrenica netherlands %26 un

> Refine results with advanced case search

478 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 85 of 96   next > last >>

The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi, Assad Hassan Sabra

Summary of Judgment, 18 Aug 2020, Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Trial Chamber), The Netherlands

On 14 February 2005, explosives equivalent to 2500 kgs of TNT were detonated in Downtown Beirut, killing former PM Rafik Hariri and 21 others and injuring 226 people.

In its judgement of 18 August 2020, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Ayyash guilty of co-perpetrating conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, committing a terrorist act by an explosive device, intentional homicide of Mr. Rafik Hariri with premeditation and by explosive materials, and attempted intentional homicide of 226 persons with premeditation by using explosive materials. The Court’s reasoning was based on the connection of Mr. Ayyash to mobile Red 741, which had been proven to have monitored Mr. Hariri’s movements and prepared for the attack.

The Trial Chamber, however, acquitted Messrs. Oneissi and Sabra for lack of sufficient evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, their complicity to the attack, and acquitted Mr. Merhi for insufficient factual evidence surrounding his actions.


Presbyterian Church Of Sudan v. Talisman Energy: The Presbyterian Church Of Sudan, et al. v. Talisman Energy, Inc. And Republic Of The Sudan

Judgment, 2 Oct 2009, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Unites States of America, United States

In 2001 the Presbyterian Church of Sudan filed a lawsuit against the Canadian oil and gas producer, Talisman Energy, under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, which provides US courts with original jurisdiction over certain tort claims filed by aliens. In the suit, it was claimed that Talisman aided the Government of Sudan in the commission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the claim, Talisman worked alongside the Sudanese Government in the creation of buffer zones around certain oil fields, which effectively assisted human rights violations and the perpetration of international crimes in order to gain access to oil by displacing the population living in the areas around the oil fields and attacking their villages.

The District Court of New York dismissed the claim on 12 September 2006. On 3 October 2009, the decision was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Court of Appeals held that, due to previous case law, it had to look at international law to decide what standard was applicable to establishing aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations. Turning to international law, the Court held that purposefully intending the violations, rather than knowledge of the violations alone, was the applicable standard. So, in order to determine liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act the plaintiffs must show that “Talisman acted with the “purpose” to advance the Government’s human rights abuses.” The Court held that the claimants had failed to establish that Talisman “acted with the purpose to support the Government’s offences”.


Kurtović: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Zijad Kurtović

Second Instance Verdict, 25 Mar 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Zijad Kurtović, a commander of a military police platoon of the Bosnian army, was accused of involvement in war crimes committed during the war between Croatia and Bosnia (1992-1995). More specifically, he was charged with torturing and otherwise inflicting serious mental and physical harm to Croatian civilians and prisoners of war in a Roman Catholic church in October 1993, by beating them, forcing them to eat pages from the Bible, using and ordering others to use Croatian civilians and prisoners of war as human shields on the frontlines, and with forcing two detained HVO soldiers to perform an oral sexual intercourse. In first instance, Kurtović was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.

 

Kurtović appealed on several grounds, arguing that the first instance Panel had erred in law (using the wrong law) and in fact (wrongly established certain facts). The prosecution also appealed against the sentence, which was, in its view, too lenient. The Appellate Panel partly agreed with Kurtović where it concerned the classification of the crimes. It could not be established with certainty which victims had been combatants; however, as it was evident that all detained persons were entitled to protection under common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and that they were to be qualified (as is usual under the law of war in case of doubt) as civilians. However, the findings on the facts remained further unchanged. Therefore, the Appellate Panel amended the conviction to only include war crimes against civilians and the wanton destruction of religious monuments. The prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed; the 11-year prison sentence was upheld.


Marques et al.: The General Prosecutor v. Joni Marques, Manuel de Costa, Joao da Costa, Paolo da Costa, Amelio da Costa, Hilario da Silva, Gonsalo Dos Santos, Alarico Fernandes, Mautersa Monis and Gilberto Fernandes

Judgement, 11 Dec 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. Members of the Indonesian Armed Forces worked together with local pro-autonomy militia groups to perpetrate a campaign of violence against the civilian population, particularly against those perceived to be independence supporters.

The ten accused in the present case were all members of or otherwise affiliated with the pro-autonomy Team Alpha militia group. In 1999, they directed a number of attacks against the civilian population including the torture of one individual, the shooting of a car full of civilians including nuns and journalists, as well as the burning down of civilian homes and the transfer of the population to refugee bases or to West Timor.

The Special Panels convicted all of the Accused for various crimes against humanity and handed down sentences that ranged from 33 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to 4 years’ imprisonment, depending on the degree of the Accused’s involvement in the crimes. It was the first case before the Special Panels to involve crimes against humanity.


Sarmento (Benjamin) & Tilman (Romeiro): The Prosecutor v. Benjamin Sarmento & Romeiro Tilman

Judgement, 16 Jul 2003, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups carried out attacks on the Timorese population, particularly targeting those suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Benjamin Sarmento and Romeiro Tilman, were deputy commanders in the Tim Sasurat Ablai militia group, which operated in Same Sub-District of East Timor. They gave orders for the murder of all independence supporters in a number of villagers and participated directly in some of those murders, for example by stabbing victims with a spear or beating them with sticks. They also ordered the deportation of approximately 15 000 East Timorese villagers into West Timor, threatening them with death if they resisted. Their orders were carried out by the militia members under their authority. Although the Prosecutor initially charged both Accused with a greater number of offenses including unlawful imprisonment, the remaining charges were withdrawn after the Accused pleaded guilty: Sarmento to four counts of murder and one count of deportation as crimes against humanity, Tilman to one count of murder and one count of deportation. The Special Panels sentenced Sarmento to 12 years’ imprisonment and Tilman to 8 years’ imprisonment. 


<< first < prev   page 85 of 96   next > last >>