Search results

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack and which they considered guilty of torture.

The District Court did not assess the merits, as the Court held, most importantly, that the relevant provisions of international law did not provide the plaintiffs with the possibility to take legal action. In several parts of the opinion, the Court clearly stated its opinion that it is not up to the federal courts to judge on claims arising under international law, unless an international legal provision grants a private right to sue. A federal court should not be a substitute for an international tribunal and the judiciary should not interfere with foreign affairs and international relations, according to the Court.

Also, the Court held that too much time had passed since the attack to take the matter to court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed.  

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack. They based their action on, most importantly, a paragraph of the US Code which allows aliens to file action against an alleged violation of the law of nations or a treaty. 

After the District Court had dismissed their case, the Court of Appeals had to assess the plaintiffs’ appeal against this Opinion. It turned out that the Appellate Panel disagreed on basically everything except on the final conclusion: the dismissal was affirmed. Judge Bork denied the existence of a right to sue altogether, stating that nor the law of nations, nor treaties provided the plaintiffs with this right. Judge Robb considered the questions to be answered in this case too political to be answered in a court. Matters regarding the international status of terrorist acts and sensitive matters of diplomacy should be left to politicians, in his opinion. 

Darko Knesevic was born in Banja Luka (former Yugoslavia) on 10 October 1964. On 1 November 1995, the Officer of Justice of the District Court in Arnhem, the Netherlands, requested a preliminary inquiry into which legal authority was competent in the case against Knesevic. Knesevic was suspected of killing two Bosnian Muslims, threatening others and transferring them to a concentration camp, and attempting to rape two women, while he was part of an armed group serving as part of the Bosnian Serb militias that killed Bosnian Muslim civilians during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1995).

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad), relying on the Geneva Conventions’ concept of universal jurisdiction, ruled that the Dutch military chambers could consider the case even though the alleged crimes were committed outside the Netherlands.

Anto Furundžija was the commander of a special unit of the Croatian Defence Council called the “Jokers.” He was brought before the ICTY for the commission of crimes against Bosnian Muslims who were interrogated at the headquarters of the “Jokers” in Nadioci (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1993. During the interrogations, those detained were subjected to sexual assaults, rape, physical and mental suffering.

Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the elements of the war crime of torture have been fulfilled and it found Furundžija guilty of this crime as a co-perpetrator. Furthermore, Furundžija was also found guilty of aiding and abetting the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, including rape. Although Furundžija did not personally commit the crime, his presence and actions aided and abetted the commission of rape. 

Furundžija was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. 

During the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Maksim Sokolovic was part of a paramilitary group that operated near Osmaci, northeast of Sarajevo. On 27 and 28 May 1992, Sokolovic participated in Serbian military actions against the Muslim population of Osmaci that were part of the Bosnian Serb joint policy of ethnic-cultural unification. Sokolovic, who knew and approved of this goal, personally oversaw the displacement of the inhabitants of Osmaci, and also severely physically abused five prisoners. Sokolovic had been a resident of Germany for twenty years and received a pension from the German government.

Higher Regional Court in Germany had sentenced Sokolovic to nine years’ imprisonment. The Federal Supreme Court rejected Sokolovic’s appeal to this sentence and held that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction was justified in cases of genocide and grave war crimes, as German courts have the obligation to prosecute such crimes.

Regarding the issue whether it is necessary in such cases to demonstrate a link with Germany for legal action to be taken, the Court held that it is not necessary to demonstrate such a link in cases where the competence of the German courts is based on an international treaty Germany is bound by that makes it mandatory that Germany start legal proceedings. In this particular case, there was a domestic link, as Sokolovic had been living in Germany for 20 years and was receiving a German pension.

The court confirmed Sokolovic’ sentence of nine years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide together with aiding and abetting wrongful imprisonment in 56 cases and causing severe bodily harm in five cases.