730 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 138 of
146
next >
last >>
Vasiljkovic v Minister for Justice : Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia
Judgment , 12 Dec 2014, Federal Court, Australia
Dual Australian-Serbian citizen “Captain Dragan” (Dragan Vasiljkovic, known in Australia as Daniel Snedden) was the first Australian citizen to be extradited from Australia. Croatia alleges that Snedden committed war crimes against prisoners of war and civilians in 1991 and 1993 whilst in command of Serbian paramilitary troops.
In this case, the Court held that there was no reviewable error in the Minister’s determination under Section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Snedden should be extradited. While the determination process had taken a considerable time, delay did not lead to the expiration of the Minister’s power, nor had procedural unfairness been demonstrated.
The Court also held that because the Minister was not bound to consider Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention in making his determination, any errors in the interpretation of that Article would not vitiate the decision. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the interpretation.
This case highlights the desirability of domestic legislation implementing international agreements in jurisdictions such as Australia where international agreements entered into by the country are not automatically binding in the domestic legal system.
Prosecutor v. Omar H.
Appeal Judgment, 27 Jan 2015, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands
On 27 January 2015, the Hague Court of Appeal convicted Omar H. for training for terrorism and making preparations to commit arson and/or an explosion. Thus, the Appeals Court agreed with the District Court of Rotterdam that Omar H. had prepared to commit arson and/or an explosion. However, it distanced itself from the District Court’s finding that Omar H. had not trained for terrorism as, according to the District Court, his actions could not be considered as “training”. On the contrary, the Hague Court of Appeal decided that training for terrorism had to be interpreted broadly. Researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s interest in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. Omar H. was sentenced in total to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal.
Prosecutor v. Mouhannad Droubi
Judgment, 26 Feb 2015, Södertörn District Court, Sweden
On 26 February 2015, Syrian citizen Mouhannad Droubi was sentenced by the Södertörn District Court in Sweden to five years in prison for crimes against international law (war crime) and gross assault. Droubi, who fought for the Free Syrian Army against the pro-government forces in the Syrian conflict, had taken refuge in Sweden and was granted residency in 2013. In July 2014, the Swedish police discovered a video of him, along with at least five other FSA fighters, violently assaulting a man who appeared to be a pro-regime fighter with a truncheon and a whip. The decision was overturned several times on appeal, leading to the final judgment of 5 August 2016 in which the accused was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
Harun P: Prosecutor v. Harun P
Judgment, 15 Jul 2015, Oberlandesgericht München, Germany
On 15 July 2015, German foreign fighter Harun P was convicted of membership in a foreign terrorist organisation and attempted murder in relation to his time in Syria in 2013 and 2014. Harun P had travelled to Syria in 2013 and joined the terrorist group Junud al-Sham. Subsequently, he confessed to participating in a large scale attack on a prison in Aleppo and to firing a mortar blindly into a populated industrial area in Syria. Since his return, he has distanced himself from his former views and cooperated significantly with the police. Harun P was ultimately sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.
Burcu T.: Prosecutor v. Burcu T.
Judgment, 22 Jul 2015, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
On 22 July 2015, Burcu T., a Dutch national, was found guilty of violating the 1977 Dutch Sanction Law by transferring just over €2000 to an intermediary in Turkey as she ought to know the money would end up in the hands of terrorist groups. Burcu T. had been engaged to [T], who had informed her he was a member of the Taliban, and the court found that she ought to have known it was likely that the money she transferred would go to jihadist groups. In the same judgment, Burcu T. was acquitted of participating in a terrorist organisation due to a lack of adequate proof; the fact that the defendant was in a relationship with a terrorist and that she possessed documents, photos and videos linked to the jihad did not mean that she was a terrorist herself. She was sentenced to six months of imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 138 of
146
next >
last >>