683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 89 of
137
next >
last >>
Gathungu v. Kenya: John Gathungu v. A-G and the Republic of Kenya
, 28 Oct 2010, High Court of Kenya, Kenya
Seifert: Italy v. Seifert
Sentenza (sentence), 24 Nov 2000, Military Tribunal of Verona (Tribunale Militare Di Verona ), Italy
At the end of World War II, Michael Seifert, a Ukrainian national who had joined the SS, served as a guard at the Bolzano transit concentration camp. Here, together with another Ukrainian national, and upon the orders (or with acquiescence) of his superior Cologna, he participated in the murder and unlawful killing of internees of the Bolzano camp. In 1951 Michael Seifert moved to Canada where he lived until he was extradited to Italy in 2008.
In 2000, when he was still living in Canada, he was tried in absentia by the Military Tribunal of Verona and charged with acts of violence and murder under Articles 13 and 185 of the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War. The Military Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to try the case, as the Military Criminal Code Applicable in Time of War also applies to soldiers of the enemy’s armed forces and members of the SS (as Seifert was), are to be considered part of the Third Reich’s armed forces. The Tribunal rejected Seifert’s defence that he acted on orders of his superior, stating that the carrying out of superior orders is no defence to war crimes, as the order to commit such crimes is clearly unlawful and thus allows the subordinate to challenge it.
The Court found Seifert guilty of 11 murders and sentenced him to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Sokolovic: The Prosecutor v. Maksim Sokolovic
Beschluss & Urteil, 21 Feb 2001, Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Germany, Germany
During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.
Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.
Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.
The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.
Schneider v. Kissinger: René Schneider et al. v. Henry A. Kissinger et al.
Memorandum Opinion, 30 Mar 2004, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics. Also, the Court held that Kissinger had acted within the constraints of his position of National Security Adviser and that therefore the defendant should be the United States, not Kissinger personally. However, the Court held that the United States enjoyed immunity for the alleged crimes. Therefore, the case was dismissed.
Schneider v. Kissinger: René Schneider et al. v. Henry Alfred Kissinger and United States of America et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court, 28 Jun 2005, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States
In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics.
The Court of Appeals agreed, refusing to differentiate between this particular alleged decision and the general tendencies of foreign policy in 1970. It therefore confirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the Constitution had provided Congress with sufficient instruments to check the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy. It should be left to politicians to answer political questions, the Court reasoned, not to judges.
<< first
< prev
page 89 of
137
next >
last >>