Search results

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas.

John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian national and a retired auto-worker residing in the United States, was extradited to Israel to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by him during his time as a guard at the concentration camp Treblinka, Poland. He was convicted by the District Court of Jerusalem and then acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel on the grounds of mistaken identity. The Court found that although the evidence established that Demjanjuk was a Wachtman – an individual trained at a Russian camp to assist the Germans - there was a reasonable doubt that he was Ivan the Terrible, the notorious guard at Treblinka responsible for a number of crimes.

The present decision is a petition by 10 civil parties for new trial proceedings to be brought against Demjanjuk on the basis of his involvement not with the Treblinka camp, but with the camp at Sobibor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding that new proceedings might violate the rule on double jeopardy, which prohibits individuals being judged twice for the same conduct. 

The island of Atauro, off the coast of East Timor, had been subject to illegal occupation by the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), much as the rest of East Timor since 1975.

When the TNI departed in September 1999, a town meeting was held at which a fight broke out between the Accused, Victor Manuel Alves, and the former village chief. The latter was a pro-autonomy supporter who had collaborated with the TNI and towards whom many islanders felt animosity. He had arrived at the meeting and proceeded to provoke Alves, challenging the latter to shoot him with a rifle that Alves had brought to the meeting. Angered, Alves fired three shots as a warning; the third hit the victim and killed him.

Alves was indicted for murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code but the Special Panels for Serious Crimes found that the intent of the Accused to kill had not been established. He was convicted instead for the crime of causing death by negligence and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court took into consideration as mitigating factors the provocation of the Accused by the victim, as well as his previous role in ensuring the welfare of the islanders by successfully bribing the TNI to spare the lives of pro-independence supporters.  His sentence would not be executed in the event that he compensated the victim’s family and refrained from committing any crimes for a two-year period. 

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.  

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. Whereas the District Court in first instance had granted the corporations’ motion to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed. The District Court had ruled that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for jurisdiction. The majority of the panel disagreed, though for different reasons: one judge relied on international law to substantiate this, another solely relied on national law. A third judge dissented, arguing that this case should not be allowed to proceed, among other things because of fierce opposition from both South Africa and the US.

Nikola Andrun, born on 22 November 1957, was during the second half of 1993 a deputy head of the Gabela detention camp in the municipality of Čapljina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) where Bosniak civilians were detained. As deputy head, Andrun took detainees out of the Gabela detention camp on several occasions and subjected them to interrogations, beatings and acts of torture. Between July and September 1993, numerous incidents of detainee abuse took place during which Andrun was present, either as an observer or as a direct participant. Some of the detainees disappeared but their remains were later exhumed and identified.

Andrun was found guilty for war crimes against Bosniak civilians and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.