Kemal Mehinovic et al. v. Nikola Vuckovic
| Court |
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, United States |
| Case number |
1:98-CV-2470-MHS |
| Decision title |
Order |
| Decision date |
29 April 2002 |
| Parties |
- Nikolai Vuckovic
- Kemal Mehinovic
- Muhamed Bicic
- Safet Hadzialijagic
- Hasan Subasic
|
| Categories |
Crimes against humanity, Genocide, War crimes |
| Keywords |
arbitrary detention, crimes against humanity, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, genocide, torture, war crimes |
| Links |
|
back to topSummary
The United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia convicted a former Serb soldier, Nikola Vuckovic, to pay compensatory damage for crimes committed during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Four former victims of Vuckovic filed the case before the US District Court. The alleged acts took place in Bosanski Samac. The victims had known the defendant for years, since they were all from Bosanski Samac. After the war broke out, the victims were requested to come to the Police Station that had just been taken over by the Serbs. There they were tortured, beaten and assaulted for months. Other detainees died during this detention period. After some time, the detainees were transferred to a warehouse where the torture continued. After the war, all victims fled abroad. They still suffer physical and mental pain due to the abuses.
The US District Court holds Nikola Vuckovic responsible for the acts, by arguing that he was ‘a substantial and proximate cause and contributing factor in the injuries. The Court judges in favour of the victims and condemns Nikola Vuckovic to a 140 million dollar damage claim for the victims.
back to topProcedural history
26 August 1998: United States District Court Northern District of Georgia, Complaint, Case no 1 98-CV.2470;
14 October 1998: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, Defendant’s Memo in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss, Case no 1:98-CV-2470;
13 October 1998: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Plaintiff’s Memo of Points and authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, Case no 1:98-CV-2470;
14 December 1998: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, First Amended Complaint, Case no 1:98-CV.2470;
10 September 1999: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Case no 1:98-CV-2470-WBH;
08 October 1999: Affidavit of Vincent James Iacopino in Support of Mehinovic;
08 October 1999: Affidavit of Vincent James Iacopino in Support of Subasic;
09 October 2001: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief, Case no: 1:98-CV-2470-WBH;
22 October 2001: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Transcript of Trial before Judge Shoob, Case no: 1:98-CV-2470-MHS;
07 January 2002: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Case no;
29 April 2002: United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, Decision;
29 April 2002: Summary of US Court’s Decision;
01 May 2002: Judgment Entered in Favour of Plaintiff.
back to topRelated developments
Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff on 1 May 2002 and provides some guidance in predicting how future courts might address the issue of torture. The judgment demonstrates that a single incident, such as pulling teeth, can constitute torture.
After the Vuckovic case, several other human rights cases were considered in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) and the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA). The case of Doe v. Ali (Col. Tukeh)was brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Virginia on November 10, 2004. The complaint accuses Col. Tukeh of command responsibility and personal responsibility for crimes against humanity; torture; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; attempted extrajudicial killing; arbitrary detention; and war crimes (for more information, see here).
back to topLegally relevant facts
The four plaintiffs, all Bosnian Muslims, sued Vuckovic (hereafter: defendant), an ethnic Serb, for, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, arbitrary detention, war crimes and crimes against humanity (para. 28). Prior to the conflict, both the plaintiffs and the defendant lived in the town of Bosanksi Samac in northern Bosnia. The defendant thus already knew the plaintiffs when he started working at the detention facilities after the war broke out. At the time his suit was filed, he was residing in Georgia (para. 13). During the days and weeks following the Serb takeover in Boskanshi the plaintiffs endured mistreatment by the defendant. They were detained in ad hoc facilities in that area and repeatedly kicked, beaten and subjected to forms of violence using revolvers, rifles, batons and other instruments (para. 12).
back to topCore legal questions
- Whether the United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ federal claims under the ACTA and TVPA;
- Whether the defendant could be held liable for the crime of torture under the ATCA and the TVPA, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, crimes under customary international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity;
- Whether the defendant should pay compensatory damages to the Plaintiffs.
back to topSpecific legal rules and provisions
- The Alien Tort Claims Act, Paragraph 1350 of Title 28 of the US Code.
- Chapter 131 and Paragraph 1367 of Title 28 of the US Code.
- The Torture Victim Protection Act.
- The laws of the State of Georgia and of Bosnia-Herzegovina (these are not mentioned in the Decision)
back to topCourt's holding and analysis
U.S. District Courts can have jurisdiction for any civil action by an alien for tort only, when committed in violation of the law of nations (para. 28). According to the Court, the plaintiffs proved that the defendant had violated customary international law establishing individual liability under the ACTA. The judges determined that the defendant was liable for torture, acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, crimes against humanity and war crimes against each plaintiff (para. 28). With regards to the fact, the court stated that the defendant committed several acts against the plaintiffs, amongst others, kicking, beating, carving a symbol on their heads and hanging them upside down from a rope (paras. 1-77).
The Court was convinced that the acts committed by defendant and the Bosnian Serb Chief of Police Todorovic at the Bosanski Samac police station fall inside the scope of torture under the ATCA and TVPA (‘Torture’ para. 1 and 2). The defendant was identified by the plaintiffs as the individual abusing, torturing and humiliating them at the TO warehouse. With respect to the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the Court determined that the defendant carried out acts specific to degrade en humiliate the plaintiffs, by carving their heads with a recognized Muslim symbol and carrying out beatings and humiliations in front of others (para. B. ‘Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’). With regard to the detention, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were held without ever being advised of any charges against them. Moreover, they were detained for prolonged periods of time with the defendant’s knowledge and participation (para. C. ‘Arbitrary Detention’). The Court also noted that by committing these acts in the course of hostilities rising to the level of armed conflict (either international or non-international), the defendant has committed violations of customary international humanitarian law (para. D. ‘War Crimes’). By aiding and participating in several acts of brutality against civilians on the sole basis that they were Muslims, the defendant was also found guilty of crimes against humanity(para. ‘E. Crimes against Humanity). Finally, the court awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs for the pain and suffering inflicted upon them by the defendant (para. ‘A. Compensatory Damages).
back to topInstruments cited
back to topAdditional materials
