Case of Mohamad vs Rajoub - Essay Example

It is evident from the study that the case of Mohamad vs Rajoub was filed by the widow and children of Azzam Rahim , who was tortured brutally and murdered inside the custody of a Palestinian jail by the officials However the court dismissed the case filed by the accused family on the grounds that that the Torture victim protection act applies only to the natural persons which was later supported by the Supreme of the United States. Though the respondents in the case which included the three officers accepted their guilt but the court provided the decision on their favor considering the fact that Azzam Rahim was not a natural person.

The case of Mohammad vs Rajoub was filed in the court with a purpose to investigate the fact that whether Torture victim Protection Act 1991was also applicable only to the natural persons or not. The case was under the jurisdiction of the district court of Colombia though it was later handled by the US Supreme Court. In the case the source of the criminal was law comprised of the families of the victim and the three officials of the custody. Accomplice liability in legal term refers to the fact that an individual is held guilty for the commitment of the crime by other if the person intentionally is involved in the crime by his solicitation, or advice to commit the crime with the help of the physical conduct or his psychological influence.

In the case referred the victim who was in custody was brutally beaten by the officials who caused him death. The three officers who were held as guilty were charged with the Accomplice liability considering the fact that all three were involved in the killing and must have provoked each other in beating the victim in custody which caused him death. It also conferred on the fact that the accomplice had the stake in the act of the principal. As in the case it was difficult to point out the principle accused as all three were equally responsible, so the accused were held guilty under the charge of accomplice liability (Rogers, n.d, p.1351).

Criminal liability refers to the liability of the accused which arises on the event of breaking the law or committing a crime. In the case mentioned the respondents were held guilty and charged with criminal liability on the grounds that they violated the law and killed the convict in the prison. As a result of the offence they committed, they were sentenced to jail for 1-7 years, but they were not imposed with any other liability considering the fact that the victim was not a natural person.

During the petition in the court the officials also accepted their act of violating the law of killing a person in jail. Difference between various elements of crime and the application in the case: The elements of crime which are considered in the paper are Actus Reus, Actus Menus and concurrence. In legal terms the, Actus Reus refers to the conduct of the accused and in order to declare the accused as criminal it is necessary to investigate the reason behind the act which causes the harm to the victim and the act must be a voluntary in nature .

In the case of Mohammad vs Rajoub, it was found out that the officials in the custody had