Search results

Lawrence G. Hutchins III was a U.S. Marine Sergeant and a squad leader of a unit conducting counterinsurgency operations. Together with seven other U.S. Marines, they were accused of having killed Iraqi war veteran Hashim Ibrahim Awad on 26 April 2006.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction due to lack of a fair trial when one of Hutchins’ primary attorneys departed shortly before the court-martial began. Hutchins was once more freed on appeal on 26 June 2013 when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out the convictions entered against him, after he has served half of his 11-year sentence. On 28 January 2014 the commanding general of the U.S. Marine Corps moved for third retrial “due to the seriousness of the charges and the amount of evidence that had been compiled through investigations.”

The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.

On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.

The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.

This is the one of the first cases in Europe in which a person was tried for attempting to travel to Syria to join the jihad. Mohammed G., a 24-year old Dutch national, made several preparations for his departure; he booked an airplane ticket from Amsterdam to Gaziantep (Turkey), he packed his suitcase and expressed his support for the jihad multiple times. The District Court of Rotterdam found Mohammed G. not guilty of preparatory acts for and/or the committing of terrorist crimes. However, it did find the defendant guilty of preparatory acts to commit murder. According to the Court, these acts had to be seen ‘within the framework of terrorism’.

The defendant suffered from a psychotic disorder, meaning that he suffered from hallucinations in which he heard a voice in his head ordering him to take action within the framework of jihad. On the basis of this fact, the Court found the defendant not criminally responsible and acquitted him. Instead, the defendant was ordered to spend a year in a psychiatric hospital.

On 9 October 2015 the Dutch citizen Mohammed G. was arrested because the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service AIVD believed he was about to travel to Syria or Iraq. This was not the first time the defendant was arrested; in an earlier judgment Mohammed G. was ordered to spend a year in a psychiatric hospital because he suffered from hallucinations that ordered him to join the jihadi armed struggle in Syria or Iraq.

In the current case, the Court held that the defendant was well aware of the things he would participate in if he were to travel to Syria or Iraq. For example, the defendant was recorded saying ‘I want to fight, I want to kill, I want to be’. The Court therefore ruled that the defendant was guilty of seeking to obtain for himself or for others the opportunity, means or information for the commission of arson and/or causing explosions and/or murder and/or manslaughter. According to the Court, the participation in the jihadi armed struggle can be qualified as those crimes. The defendant committed the crimes with terrorist intent.

A psychological report of the defendant was drawn up, which concluded that the defendant’s intelligence bordered on him being mentally handicapped. The Court concurred with these findings and concluded that the defendant was in a state of partially diminished responsibility. The Court therefore sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment and a hospital order (TBS), to reduce the risk of recidivism.

In 1979, fourteen Burmese villagers filed a complaint against the oil company UNOCAL. They claimed that they suffered abuses including torture and rape during the construction of the Yadana Pipeline. UNOCAL allegedly assisted in the abuses perpetrated by the military government in Rangoon.

The Burmese villagers based their claim on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows US courts to decide cases in respect of foreign nationals for crimes that occurred outside of the US.

In the particular decision, the Superior Court held that even though one of the theories of the Burmese villagers was refused, the case was not dismissed and as a result, they were allowed to proceed with their further theories. On 14 September 2004, the defendants’ motion for judgment was denied.