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 91 of 133   next > last >>

Hamdan: Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld

Memorandum Opinion, 8 Nov 2004, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision of 8 November 2004 found that Hamdan could not be tried by the military commission until such time as a competent tribunal has determined whether he is entitled to prisoner of war status. Only in the event that the outcome of such a determination is negative may Hamdan be tried by military commission, provided that the military commission amends its rules which currently preclude the presence of the accused at certain hearings of his own trial. Without such amendments, trial by military commission would be unlawful. The decision is the first in a line of case law before the United States courts and military commissions in the case of Hamdan. 


Soares (Marculino): The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Marculino Soares

Julgamento (Judgement), 1 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During the outbreak of violence before, during and after the referendum on independence of East Timor from Indonesia, Marculino Soares was a Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia commander from the village of Guico, in the district of Liquiça. The BMP militia was an anti-independence militia. On 17 April 1999, the house of Manuel Carrascalão, a pro-independence leader, was attacked, resulting in the death of 12 persons, and serious injuries to 9 others. On that day, Marculino Saores had ordered his men to go to a rally in Dili, from where the attack was launched. The group led by Marculino Soares joined the attack. Marculino Soares was indicted on 25 July 2003 by the Special Panel for Serious Crimes for participating in the attack, and charged with crimes against humanity, on the basis of individual and command responsibility.

The Court found that it had been proven that Marculino Soares personally participated in the organization and execution of the attack. Marculino Soares was convicted of crimes against humanity (murder, other inhumane acts and persecution) and sentenced to 15 years in prison (13 for the count of murder and 2 years for the count of other inhumane acts).


Abdah et al.: Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. George W. Bush et al.

Memorandum Opinion, 29 Mar 2005, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba).

The District Court granted the motion, after being satisfied that a four-part test was fulfilled. This test required the Court to balance four relevant factors, namely: (a) the irreparable injury to the Petitioners in the absence of the injunction; (b) the likelihood of success of the habeas corpus motion; (c) the harm to the US government; and (d) the public interest.

The District Court ruled that the US government must give the lawyers of the detainees 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged. 


Barros & Mendonca: Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Sisto Barros and Cesar Mendonca

Final Judgment, 12 May 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia’s invasion of Timor-Leste in 1975 marked the beginning of almost 25 years of immense atrocities and human rights abuses, resulting in the deaths of nearly one-third of the population of Timor-Leste from starvation, disease, and the use of napalm. Indonesia eventually withdrew in 1999 following international pressure; Timor-Leste achieved full independence in 2002. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes was established to prosecute persons responsible for the serious crimes committed in 1999, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual offenses and torture.

The Accused, Barros and Mendonca, were members of the Laksaur militia, an armed group aimed at suppressing Timorese supporters of independence. The Panel convicted the Accused for two counts of murder, attempted murder and persecution carried out as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the population of East Timor, who had voted in favour of Timorese independence from Indonesia. Although neither of the Accused had carried out the acts themselves, they were liable as members of a joint criminal enterprise whose purpose was to suppress pro-independence supporters. 


Hamdan: Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254), 15 Jul 2005, Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, United States

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeal found that the Geneva Convention was not judicially enforceable so Hamdan cannot rely on it before the federal courts. The Court continued that, even if it were, Hamdan was not entitled to its protection because the Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda members. Hamdan’s trial could proceed before a military commission. 


<< first < prev   page 91 of 133   next > last >>