skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: herero genocide

> Refine results with advanced case search

221 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 38 of 45   next > last >>

Mamani v. De Lozada & Berzain: Mamani et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada, and Mamani et al. v. Sánchez Berzain

Decision on Appeal, 29 Aug 2011, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States

Nine relatives of people killed during a series of national protests in Bolivia in October 2003, brought a case in the U.S. against the former President of Bolivia, Sánchez de Lozada, and the former Minister of Defence of Bolivia, Sánchez Berzaín. The plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín were responsible for the killing of more than 400 people in Bolivia during the suppression of the protests directed against the government’s policies. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín gave orders to the Bolivian security forces to use deadly force against protestors. The plaintiffs asked for compensation. On 29 August 2011, a U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed their claims because they had not presented enough evidence to establish a link between both Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín and the killings.


Barake v. Israel: Barake et al. v. The Ministry of Foreign Defense et al.

Judgment, 14 Apr 2002, Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice, Israel

During IDF operations against terrorist infrastructure in the areas of the Palestinian Authority (“Operation Defensive Wall”), a dispute arose about burial rights. The Palestinian petitioners requested that the IDF be ordered to cease checking and removing the bodies of Palestinians that had been killed during the course of warfare in the Jenin refugee camp, and that the IDF be ordered not to bury those ascertained to be terrorists in the Jordan valley cemetery. Petitioners also requested to acknowledge that the tasks of identifying and removing the bodies were the responsibility of medical teams and the Red Cross, and that the families be allowed to bring their dead to a quick and honorable burial. 

The Supreme Court of Israel held that the government was responsible, under international law, for the location, identification, and burial of the bodies. As such, teams will be assembled for the location, identification and removal of bodies. The government agreed that the Red Cross should participate in these activities and would "positively consider the suggestion" that the Red Crescent also participate, according to the discretion of the Military Commander. Furthermore, it was established that the identification process be completed as quickly as possible, and will ensure the dignity of the dead as well as the security of the forces. At the end of the identification process, the burial stage will begin; the government allowed the Palestinians to do this themselves, as long as they did it in a timely manner and without threatening Israeli security. Also, no differentiation will be made between bodies (e.g. between the bodies of civilians and the bodies of declared terrorists).


Vračević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mirko Vračević a/k/a Srbin

Indictment, 27 Dec 2006, State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mirko Vračević was born on 15 March 1945 in Donji Smrtići in Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was member of the Bijelo Polje Battalion of the Second Brigade of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), and a guard in the Vojno prison facility which was set up by the HVO. In the period between July 1993 and March 1994, Vračević planned, instigated and perpetrated an attack conducted by the HVO against the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniak) residing in the municipality of Mostar. During that attack, 76 women, children and elderly were arrested and later kept in houses in Vojno village located in the Mostar municipality. Moreover, hundreds of men were kept in garages and cellars of houses where they were beaten and psychologically maltreated, and as a result, 16 of them died. During their detention, the Bosniak civilians did not have access to adequate food, clothing, drinking water or medical care.


Kovačević: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Nikola Kovačević

Verdict, 22 Jun 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nikola Kovačević was a member of a special unit of the Serb Territorial Defence for the municipality of Sanski Most in north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period between April and August 1992, Kovačević and members of the army of the former Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were involved in the persecution of Bosnian Muslims and Croats of the municipality of Sanski Most. In addition, Kovačević initiated the transfer of 60 detainees to the Manjaca concentration camp in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina, and did beat them while they were entering the camp. 

On 3 November 2006, Kovačević was found guilty of crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, illegal detention, inhumane acts, and persecution. Kovačević was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. On 22 June 2007, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


Sarei v. Rio Tinto: Alexis Holyweek Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto PLC and Rio Tinto Limited

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 16 Dec 2008, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 


<< first < prev   page 38 of 45   next > last >>