Search results

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Habré as well as members of the DDS, and its specialised branch the Special Rapid Action Brigade (Brigade Spéciale d'Intervention Rapide (BSIR)) were named in complaints filed by victims of the regime before the Court of First Instance in N’Djaména.

The Court of First Instance held that it was incompetent to hear the case as an Ordinance of 27 February 1993 provided that a special criminal curt of justice shall have jurisdiction. The victims appealed to the Constitutional Court for a finding that the Ordinance was unconstitutional as it purported to create a second judicial order in violation of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court accepted the arguments of the victims considering that the ordinance in question was indeed unconstitutional and should be repealed. This decision was the last in proceedings against Habré in his native Chad until 2008 when he would be tried and convicted in absentia. 

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and over 20 local militia groups operated perpetrated widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population, particularly targeting those individuals who were known to be or suspected of being independence supporters.

Saka Loromonu was one such pro-autonomy militia group who, in September 1999, abducted a known independence supporter from the home in which he was staying with his relatives. He was taken to militia headquarters where he was severely beaten, including with a machete. On the orders of the Deputy Commander of the militia, the Accused, Lino de Carvalho, and other militia members took the victim to a beach where he was repeatedly stabbed. His head was decapitated and brought back to the Commander as evidence of the execution. His body was left by the side of the road to serve as a warning to support Indonesian autonomy.

The Special Panels convicted Carvalho of murder as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) together with local militia groups perpetrated a number of crimes against the Timorese population, especially independence supporters.

The Accused, Marcurious José de Deus, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. In 1999, he and other militia members were ordered by their superiors to murder a woman who had openly revolted against the militia after its members had killed her son. De Deus, just 22 years old at the time, carried out the orders by repeatedly stabbing the mother as she grieved over the corpse of her son with a kitchen knife. He was convicted of murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. The offence, which usually carries with it a punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment, was reduced in the case of de Deus to 5 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panels took into consideration his young age, the climate of violence which existed in East Timor at the time, that the Accused was acting on orders and that he pleaded guilty to the offence and expressed genuine remorse.

In this landmark case, fourteen Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, requesting judicial review of their indefinite detention without charges. 

Revisiting the holding in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that US courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in the course of armed conflict and subsequently detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Rasul was found to differ from Eisentrager in the “plenary and exclusive jurisdiction” held by the US over Guantanamo; the Court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges from Guantanamo detainees under the terms of the general federal habeas statute.

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).