551 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 97 of
111
next >
last >>
Jalalzoy: The Public Prosecutor v. Habibullah Jalalzoy
Judgment, 8 Jul 2008, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Criminal Division, The Netherlands
The Afghani Habibullah Jalalzoy applied for political asylum in the Netherlands in 1996, but this was refused due to suspicion of his involvement in torture and war crimes during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. However, Jalalzoy stayed in the Netherlands, and after investigations he was arrested in 2004. The Hague District Court convicted him for war crimes and torture committed by him as member of the military intelligence agency KhaD-e-Nezami (KhAD). He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. Consequently, Jalalzoy appealed at the Supreme Court, arguing that both the District Court and Court of Appeal had erred in law on several points. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that Dutch courts had jurisdiction over the crime, that prosecution was admissible, that the crimes were not time-barred (as Dutch law excludes war crimes from becoming so), and that the convictions had been in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Pekez et al.: Prosecutor's Office Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mirko Pekez, Mirko Pekez and Milorad Savić
Verdict, 29 Sep 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mirko Pekez (son of Mile), Mirko Pekez (son of Špiro), and Milorad Savić were all born in Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which began in April 1992 and ended in November 1995, the three of them were members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (VRS).
On 10 September 1992, members of the VRS took Bosnian civilians out of their homes in Ljoljići-Čerkazovići located in the municipality of Jajce (central Bosnia and Herzegovina), and subsequently brought them to the nearby village of Draganovac where they were lined up against the edge of an abyss before being shot. Mirko Pekez (son of Mile), Mirko Pekez (son of Špiro), and Milorad Savić were charged for their participation in the killing of 23 and the wounding of four of the Bosnian civilians. On 29 September 2008, the Appellate Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Pekez (son of Mile) guilty for the crimes, and ordered a retrial.
Morlock: The Army Prosecutor v. Jeremy Morlock
Judgment, 23 Mar 2011, martial court, Washington, United States
Aisha Gaddafi v. NATO: Aisha Gaddafi v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization
, 27 Jul 2011, Not applicable. Decision not to proceed was taken in Belgium
On 7 June 2011, Aisha Gaddafi, the daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, filed a claim against NATO in Belgium. She argued that the NATO bombing in Tripoli on 30 April 2011 killed her daughter, her brother and other family members. Aisha Gaddafi asserted that the NATO forces specifically attacked the building that was not used in support of any military action. She claimed that the bombing constituted war crimes.
On 27 July 2011, the Belgium prosecutors announced that they decline to investigate the complaint on the basis of the absence of connection between the victims or the defendants and Belgium.
Maher H. : Prosecutor v. Maher H.
Judgment, 7 Jul 2016, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
Following his initial conviction in December 2014, Maher H., the first convicted returning Dutch ‘foreign fighter’, was convicted again on 7 July 2016 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal in The Hague. Maher H., who the Court determined supported the jihad, had travelled to Syria in 2013, where he participated in the armed conflict. The Court found him guilty of: preparing to commit terrorist crimes, including murder and manslaughter; training for terrorism; and disseminating inciting materials, including via sharing videos, documents and posting a photo on social media. In contrast to his initial verdict, Maher H was found guilty of training for terrorism as he had, inter alia, acquired outdoor wear, searched the internet for information about the jihad and participated in the armed conflict. The Court of Appeal did find that these acts had a strong enough link to terrorist training. In contrast to the District Court’s judgment, it did not address the fact that this criminalisation could also potentially lead to the acts that constitute preparing to commit murder and/or manslaughter being punished twice. Similarly, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the District Court as it held that the uploading of pictures of jihadi flags did not constitute a direct or indirect call to commit terrorist crimes.
<< first
< prev
page 97 of
111
next >
last >>