683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 99 of
137
next >
last >>
Marić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Marinko Marić
Indictment, 22 Dec 2006, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Jurišić: Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor v. Ilija Jurišić
Indictment, 9 Nov 2007, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro
Ilija Jurišić was a member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina police reserve forces as well as a high-ranking commander in the Tuzla-based State Security Operational Centre. Later, Jurišić exercised control over all armed troops deployed over the territory of Tuzla. In the latter function, Jurišić allegedly ordered his subordinates to attack a column of soldiers of the Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA) on 5 May 1992, while this convoy had just started to withdraw from Tuzla. As a result of this attack, at least 92 JNA soldiers were killed and more than 30 others were injured.
Harbury v. Hayden et al.: Jennifer K. Harbury v. Michael V. Hayden et al. / Jennifer K. Harbury on her own behalf and as administratrix of the Estate of Efrain Bamaca—Velasquez, Appellant v. Michael V. Hayden, Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), et al., Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 96cv00438), 15 Apr 2008, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, United States
In 2006, Jennifer Harbury, the wife of ex-rebel commander Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez who was killed in Guatemala in the early 1990s, brought a complaint against U.S. governmental officials. Harbury claimed that her husband was captured in 1992 by Guatemalan army officers who were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Harbury claimed that Bamaca was physically abused and tortured during his detention in order to extract information from him about the Guatemalan rebel forces.
Harbury’s tort claim was dismissed because the District Court found that it did not have authority to rule on it since the damage occurred in another state, namely in Guatemala. On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the case involved political questions which are non-justiciable, and, in addition, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Harbury’s tort claim.
Boškoski & Tarčulovski: Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski
Judgment (public), 10 Jul 2008, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
On 12 August 2001, a group of armed individuals under the leadership of Johan Tarčulovski entered the village of Ljuboten in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The men targeted ethnic Albanians through shootings, setting houses on fire and mistreating the captured people. During this time, Ljube Boškoski was the Minister of Interior of FYROM.
Trial Chamber II examined the incidents at Ljuboten and other locations. It concluded with respect to Boškoski that he knew that crimes were being committed in and around Ljuboten, and since he reported the incidents to the authorities that should have investigated these allegations, fulfilled his obligations to take steps to punish those who were responsible. Accordingly, he cannot be held guilty on any of the charges.
Tarculovski, on the other hand, was actively participating in the events of 12 August 2001. He was the leader of the operation and participant in the events. Therefore, Trial Chamber II found him guilty for the war crimes of murder, wanton destruction and cruel treatment. He was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
Stevanovic: The Prosecutor's Office v. Miladin Stevanovic
Verdict, 29 Jul 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousands of Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over one thousand men were brought to a warehouse and executed. It is up to the Court to decide whether 10 men who allegedly were involved in the capturing, detaining and killing of these Bosniaks can be found guilty of genocide.
These men were certainly not the genocide masterminds, but members of a police force. The Court states that in a case of genocide, a distinction must be made between those who conceived and directed the acts of genocide (referred to as a joint criminal enterprise) and the common soldiers. Where the former group can be held accountable for all crimes that ensued, the latter group is only responsible for the acts they physically participated in. However, after the Court reviewed several witness statements, it considered Stevanovic’s presence during the transferring of prisoners and their execution unproven and his role in all this to be trivial. According to the Court, when Stevanovic became aware of what was expected of him, he was distinctly unhappy about and therefore he removed himself from the scene. As such, neither genocidal intent nor his participation in acts of genocide could be proven; the Court acquitted him from all charges.
<< first
< prev
page 99 of
137
next >
last >>