skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: vinuya executive secretary

> Refine results with advanced case search

96 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 2 of 20   next > last >>

Al-Skeini and others: Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals)

Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, 13 Jun 2007, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).


Al-Haq v. UK: Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Judgment, 27 Jun 2009, High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)

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.


Evans v. UK: The Queen (on the application of Maya Evans) v. Secretary of State for Defence

Approved Judgment, 25 Jun 2010, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)

The case came as a result of information that Afghan terror detainees transferred by the British Armed Forces to the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) were beaten and physically mistreated. Maya Evans, a U.K. peace activist, sought to stop that practice and brought a case before the British High Court of Justice. On 25 June 2010, the Court decided that there was a chance that detainees were indeed mistreated at the NDS detention facility in Kabul. Therefore, the Court banned detainee transfers to this NDS facility. Transfers to the NDS facilities in Kandahar and Lashkar Gah remained allowed, although the Court imposed a series of ‘safeguards’ and monitoring arrangements on all future transfers of detainees.


R. v. UK: R (on the application of Smith) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and another

Judgment, 30 Jun 2010, Supreme Court, Great Britain (UK)


Brown et al. v. Rwanda: Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinja, Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Celestin Ugirashebuja v. The Government of Rwanda and The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Judgment (Appeal against extradition), 8 Apr 2009, High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)

Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinya and three other men claimed asylum in the United Kingdom after the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. In 2006, Rwanda requested extradition of the four men for their alleged involvement in the genocide. On 28 December 2006, the four suspects were arrested in the United Kingdom.

The men appealed their extradition before the High Court. The judges determined that there is a real risk that the four men would not be granted a fair trial in Rwanda, and determined that the suspects could not be extradited to Rwanda. 


<< first < prev   page 2 of 20   next > last >>