725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 19 of
145
next >
last >>
Sumner v. UK: Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Others
Judgment No. S462, 2 Nov 1999, Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia
In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied. Sumner was unsuccessful in appealing to this judgment. The full chamber of South Australia’s Supreme Court reiterated that the interlocutory appeal to prevent the start of constructing the bridge should be denied, as there was no serious case to be tried. It did so, most importantly, because the ‘underpinning’ of the case, the allegation that building the bridge was in essence a genocidal act, was not substantiated with referral to domestic law.
Tadić: The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić
Sentencing Judgment after Referral, 11 Nov 1999, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber.
Trial Chamber IIbis considered that Tadić’s awareness of, and enthusiastic support for, the attacks on the non-Serb civilian population of Prijedor were aggravating circumstances. Trial Chamber IIbis found that Tadić’s good behaviour in the United Nations Detention Unit and his personal circumstances were mitigating factors.
Furthermore, Trial Chamber IIbis held that a crime against humanity is more serious than a war crime due to its widespread or systematic scale and the quantity of the crimes.
Tadić was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.
Thorpe v. Kennett
Judgment, 15 Nov 1999, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
The main reason for proceedings against Jeffrey Kennett, the then Premier of Victoria, appears to have been the Premier’s refusal to recognise the Gunai under Booran as a sovereign people and the Land Titles Validation (Ammended) Act, which was passed under the government of Kennett in 1998. This Act confirmed and validated property titles. According to Robbie Thorne, Aboriginal activist, this Act ‘extinguished all the native title the Victorian Aboriginal people ever had’. Arguing that these conditions would lead to mental harm and that these measures were calculated to destroy the Aboriginals, Thorne requested that Kennett would be charged with genocide.
However, Thorne faced the brick wall that many faced before and after him: the Judge ruled that genocide was not a crime under national law. Specifically, the Judge rejected the argument made by some (including a dissenting judge in a previous case) that in some instances, international law can be incorporated into domestic law. With regard to the merits of the case, the judge ruled that the evidence presented by Thorpe did not in itself demonstrate genocidal intent, which is an essential element of genocide.
Jelisić: The Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić
Judgment, 14 Dec 1999, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber I, The Netherlands
Jelisić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. During this time, the Serb forces obtained control over the area and expelled the Croat and Muslim residents from their homes. The non-Serbs were detained in collection centres, such as the Luka camp near the town of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Those detained were subjected to inhumane conditions, killings and mistreatments. Jelisić regularly entered the Luka camp and beat, mistreated and often killed the detainees.
Jelisić pleaded not guilty to genocide and guilty to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Trial Chamber I held that the requirements of his guilty plea have been fulfilled and, subsequently, it found Jelisić guilty of all counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes to which he pleaded guilty.
With respect to genocide, Trial Chamber I found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a special plan to destroy the Muslim group (the special intent element required for the crime of genocide) in Brčko, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similarly, Trial Chamber I found that even Jelisić himself did not have this special intent. Therefore, he was acquitted of the charge of genocide.
Jelisić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.
Kupreškić et al.: The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, Vladimir Šantić, also known as “Vlado”
Judgement, 14 Jan 2000, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, and Vladimir Šantić were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim population of the village of Ahmići in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In April 1993, the Bosnian Croat forces attacked the village, aiming to remove the Muslim inhabitants through the commission of crimes against them. The attack resulted in the deaths of over a hundred Muslim inhabitants, numerous others were wounded and Muslim houses and mosques were destroyed.
Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the attack on Ahmići was targeting the Muslim civilians with the aim to spread terror among them and assure that they will never return to their homes.
Dragan Papić was acquitted of the charges of persecutions (as a crime against humanity) due to insufficient evidence to sustain that he participated in the attacks.
Trial Chamber II found Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, and Vladimir Šantić guilty of persecution (as a crime against humanity). Furthermore, Josipović and Šantić were found guilty of murder and inhumane acts (both as crimes against humanity).
Trial Chamber II handed down sentences ranging between 6 and 25 years of imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 19 of
145
next >
last >>