683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 96 of
137
next >
last >>
Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven
Judgment, 20 Apr 2010, Supreme Court, The Netherlands
The accused, Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven, was suspected of involvement in smuggling arms to Liberia (through his Liberian-based timber factories) during the Second Liberian Civil War - in violation of UN arms trade bans - and accomodating/complicity in the numerous war crimes that were committed with these weapons. He was taken into custody by the Dutch police in 2005, and put on trial.
Although the Court of First Instance found him guilty of arms smuggling (but quashed the war crimes charges), the Court of Appeal later found that he could not be convicted for any of the charges due to lack of evidence. The prosecution appealed and ultimately the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred by not properly motivating its decision not to allow an examining judge to assess whether two anonymous witnesses - who were allegedly very close to Kouwenhoven and Charles Taylor, and therefore key to the prosecution's case - should be admitted as protected witnesses, could be provided a protected witness-status so as to testify in the case. The appeals judgment was declared null and void and the case was referred to another Court of Appeals.
The case is currently still before the Court of Appeal: due to the case being assessed anew on all facts and evidence, an enormous amount of requests relating to the admission of (new) evidence has been filed.
John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.
Decision, 8 Jul 2011, United States Court of Appeals, 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 an appeal against two previous rulings in this case, plaintiffs held that they should be allowed to sue Exxon for violations of the law of nations and for violations of state law. The question whether they were allowed to sue for violations of the law of nations hinged primarily on whether corporations can be sued for these violations and whether it is possible to sue for aiding-and-abetting international crimes. These questions were for the most part answered in the affirmative. The question whether they were allowed to sue for violations of state law hinged primarily on the question whether non-resident aliens could even bring a case before the Court. The Court stated that there was no absolute bar for non-residents aliens to sue and that this question had to be answered case-by-case. The Court of Appeals referred the case back to the District Court for further assessment.
Karamira: Public Prosecutor v. Froduald Karamira
Jugement, 14 Feb 1997, Court of First Instance of Kigali / Tribunal de Première instance de Kigali, Rwanda
Furundžija: The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija
Judgment, 10 Dec 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
Anto Furundžija was the commander of a special unit of the Croatian Defence Council called the “Jokers.” He was brought before the ICTY for the commission of crimes against Bosnian Muslims who were interrogated at the headquarters of the “Jokers” in Nadioci (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1993. During the interrogations, those detained were subjected to sexual assaults, rape, physical and mental suffering.
Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the elements of the war crime of torture have been fulfilled and it found Furundžija guilty of this crime as a co-perpetrator. Furthermore, Furundžija was also found guilty of aiding and abetting the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, including rape. Although Furundžija did not personally commit the crime, his presence and actions aided and abetted the commission of rape.
Furundžija was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
Jorgić: The Prosecutor v. Nikola Jorgić
Order, 12 Dec 2000, Federal Constitutional Court, 4th Chamber of the Second Senate, Germany
Nikola Jorgić was born in 1946 in the Doboj region in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was leader of a Serb paramilitary group in the Doboj region that committed various crimes against the Muslim population residing there. Jorgić was allegedly responsible for the killing of 22 villagers in Grabska (involving elderly and disabled) and seven villagers in Sevarlije. In addition, he allegedly arrested Muslims, and subsequently detained and abused them in detention camps. Jorgić was found guilty of 14 counts of acting as accomplice to murder and attempted murder. Jorgić was sentenced to life imprisonment.
It was the first war crimes trial that took place in Germany since the final judgment issued by the Nuremberg tribunal that dealt with Nazi war criminals more than 50 years ago.
<< first
< prev
page 96 of
137
next >
last >>