Search results

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. After the Supreme Court remitted the case, the District Court established a framework to determine when corporations can be held liable for human rights violations. Simply doing business with a state which violates the law of nations is not sufficient to establish liability, but if a corporation provides means by which human rights violations can be carried out and if the corporation knows that its action will substantially contribute the perpetrator in committing human rights violations, liability can be established. After applying this framework to several allegations made against several corporations, the Court establishes that part of these claims are plausible, thus allowing these claims to proceed. 

Can a state be held legally responsible for not taking a strong stance against human rights violations committed by another state? In this case, a Palestinian human rights organization requested a UK court to give its legal opinion  about UK foreign policy, in relation to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip during the Winter of 2008/2009 (‘Operation Cast Lead’ or the ‘Gaza War’). The court most important statement was that it did not consider itself authorized to rule on foreign policy. According to the court, foreign policy is made by the government’s executive branch and it should remain within that exclusive domain.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). It does so on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach the town of Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case.

Reynaldo Bignone, born in 1928, was the de facto president of Argentina from 1982 to 1983 and the last dictator to hold power in the country. As such, he was appointed by the military junta and sought to impose amnesty laws for perpetrators of gross human rights violations before transferring power to the democratically elected Raul Alfonsin. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Argentinean Supreme Court overturned these amnesties and opened the way for prosecutions of those involved in the country’s 1976-1983 “Dirty War”. Since then, Reynaldo Bignone was charged and convicted of crimes against humanity in several trials on the basis of his involvement in the Dirty War. 

In the current case, Federal Criminal Oral Tribunal No. 6 of Buenos Aires sentenced Bignone to 15 years' imprisonment for crimes against humanity for the implementation of a systematic plan to abduct and appropriate 31 children between 1976 and 1983. Other accused were sentenced to terms ranging from 5 to 50 years in prison.

Reynaldo Bignone, born in 1928, was the de facto president of Argentina from 1982 to 1983 and the last dictator to hold power in the country. As such, he was appointed by the military junta and sought to impose amnesty laws for perpetrators of gross human rights violations before transferring power to the democratically elected Raul Alfonsin. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Argentinean Supreme Court overturned these amnesties and opened the way for prosecutions of those involved in the country’s 1976-1983 “Dirty War”. Since then, Reynaldo Bignone was charged and convicted of crimes against humanity in several trials on the basis of his involvement in the Dirty War. 

On 20 October 2011, he was tried for crimes committed at the clandestine detention and torture centre Hospital Nacional “Profesor Alejandro Posadas”. Bignone was accused of crimes against humanity for the illegal deprivation of liberty of 22 persons and torture against five of them. He was found guilty in first instance on 29 December 2011 was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. On 28 November 2012, the Federal Chamber of Criminal Appeals confirmed the verdict and the sentence.