Search results

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  

Aloys Ntabakuze is an ex-Commander of the Rwandan Para-Commando Battalion. On 18 December 2008 the Tribunal found him guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, namely murder, extermination, persecution and other inhumane acts, and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life). He appealed the judgment on 37 grounds. The Appeals Chamber agreed with the Trial Chamber’s ruling that Ntabakuze was guilty as a superior for the participation of members of the Para-Commando Battalion in the killings committed at Nyanza hill on 11 April 1994 and at IAMSEA around 15 April 1994. However, the Chamber reversed Ntabazuke’s convictions for stopping the refugees killed at Nyanza hill from seeking sanctuary and for the killings in Kabeza on 7 and 8 April 1994, as well as for murder as a crime against humanity. The Appeals Chamber also set aside the Trial Chamber’s finding of Ntabakuze’s responsibility for the crimes committed by militiamen. Thus, his sentence to life imprisonment was reversed and he was sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment instead.

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings. By a decision of 25 November 1998, the House of Lords in a 3:2 majority held that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings and could therefore be extradited.

Ildephonse Hategekimana was born in Mugina Commne, Gitarama Prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, during the events in Rwanda, he held the rank of lieutenant in the Rwandan army. As determined by Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal, during the relevant period covered by the indictment, Hategekimana was the commander of the Ngoma Military Camp in Butare Prefecture.

On 7 September 2007, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal requested the transfer of Hategekimana’s case for trial before Rwandan courts. On 19 June 2008 the Chamber rejected the request due to fears that the Accused would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Therefore, the case was tried before Trial Chamber II of the ICTR. On 16 March 2009, Hategekimana was found guilty by the Trial Chamber of genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and rape as a crime against humanity for his role in ordering the killing of Tutsi refugees at the Ngoma church. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hategekimana appealed the Trial judgment on seven grounds, challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of Appeal and affirmed Hategekimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. 

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. The main legal issue to be solved by the District Court was whether it had jurisdiction over this case under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows non-Americans to sue in federal Court for a violation of a small group of international norms. The District Court ruled that this case did not fall within the scope of the ATCA for several reasons. They could not be qualified as state agents carrying out illegal state actions, business activities in South Africa during the apartheid era could not be defined as a breach of the ‘law of nations’ under the ATCA and neither could aiding and abetting to an international norm violation.