Example collocations logo

Crimes in sentence

1271 examples of Crimes in a sentence

Furthermore, truth commissions can consider the responsibility of those who, though not criminally guilty, may have helped create the conditions that contributed to terrible crimes.
Once a country’s citizens know exactly what was done, they can begin an honest debate about why such dreadful crimes were committed.
The fact that he advocated the pursuit of truth as a means to achieve that purpose demonstrates that he understands the significance that such efforts have had in countries where the state itself has committed major crimes.
The future will begin only when Turkey – like Germany in the past and Serbia and Croatia now – repudiates its policy of denial and faces up to its terrible crimes of 1915.
Security of the European Union and Europe’s moral responsibility after the crimes of World War II were at stake.
These startling figures do not include economic crimes outside the public sector.
All over the world, the Left was thrown into confusion and crisis after Khrushchev's 1956 speech exposing (some of) Stalin's crimes.
In June, Hansen proclaimed that people who spread “disinformation” about global warming – CEOs, politicians, in fact anyone who doesn’t follow Hansen’s narrow definition of the “truth” – should literally be tried for crimes against humanity.
France has made it illegal to deny any “internationally recognized crimes against humanity.”
The ICT would have complementary jurisdiction to both national courts and the ICC, intervening only when domestic bodies were unable or unwilling to try a terrorism case or when the crimes committed were outside the ICC’s jurisdiction.
They also tend to vote at higher rates, engage in more civic activities, commit fewer crimes, educate their children better, and get sick less frequently by adopting healthier lifestyles.
As stories like Berta’s, Isidro’s, and mine demonstrate, we can no longer rely on state bodies, such as national law enforcement, to ensure this outcome, much less to investigate and prosecute crimes against the planet and those who fight for it.
That is why the world needs an independent, internationally recognized legal body to which communities and activists can turn to address environmental crimes.
Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court was established to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
A similar court should do the same for crimes against the environment and its defenders.
They may not have committed any crimes, nor established actual ties to terrorist groups, before launching a major attack.
Africa’s Immunity ControversyNEW YORK – The decision by the African Union (AU), after more than five years of preparation, to confer jurisdiction over international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, on the African Court of Justice and Human Rights has inspired considerable controversy.
Another widespread criticism is that Africa lacks the capacity to try international crimes.
It has been suggested that Africa’s rulers are concerned less with holding accountable those who have committed international crimes than with protecting themselves from prosecution.
Of course, nobody, regardless of their position, should be shielded from answering for international crimes.
While some countries’ constitutions – like that of Kenya – deny immunity to a president charged with international crimes, most do not.
As Ellen Lutz and Caitlin Reiger have pointed out, “the waxing and waning of political fortunes still dominates the extent to which former leaders are held judicially accountable for their crimes at all.”
More broadly, there is a clear double standard in terms of who is charged with international crimes – a discrepancy that extends to advocates of accountability for mass atrocities.
Indeed, African leaders’ affirmation that those who commit serious international crimes must be brought to account represents genuine progress.
There is the humanitarian mission to protect civilian populations in Iraq and Syria from mass-atrocity crimes.
By far the most defensible rationale for military action is – and has been from the outset – the humanitarian objective: the responsibility to protect populations at risk of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other major crimes against humanity and war crimes.
As historical scholarship documenting the crimes of the Nazi regime continued to pile up in the 1980s and 1990s, the German political establishment reached a consensus that the country’s historic guilt and responsibility must be a central part of its national story.
Having a parent who may have been complicit in Nazi crimes is not the same thing as having a great-grandparent who was.
Members of this cohort have no personal links to past German crimes, and they have often been subjected to anti-Zionist indoctrination by regimes seeking legitimacy through solidarity with the Palestinians.
Americans know that a million refugees have fled Iraq; the Oscar-nominated documentary Five Broken Cameras and other media have shown how the United States contributes to the brutalization of Palestinians – a major driver of “jihad,” or what the US State Department calls “extremism”;US soldiers have repeatedly been implicated in war crimes; and Jeremy Scahill’s book Dirty Wars, which details targeted assassinations by the US around the world, has hit bookstores.
BackNext