Search results

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.

In the present case, the Court refused the appeals filed by both the Prosecutor’s Office and the aggrieved party Anđa Obradović and upheld the first instance verdict of 29 June 2009. In this verdict, the accused Ferid Hodžić was acquitted of the charges for war crimes against civilians and prisoners of war in the period between May 1992 and 26 January 1993 taking place in the municipality of Vlasenica.

On 12 August 2001 the village of Ljuboten, located in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), was attacked. The police killed ethnic Albanians and set fire to homes in the village. Ljube Boškoski was the Minister of the Interior of the FYROM while Johan Tarčulovski was a police officer. For their role and participation in these events, they were brought before Trial Chamber II of the ICTY. While Trial Chamber II acquitted Boškoski of the charges, it did find Tarčulovski guilty of war crimes.

Tarčulovski presented seven grounds of appeal to the Appeals Chamber, arguing that Trial Chamber II made incorrect interpretations of the law with regard to the elements of war crimes, his individual criminal responsibility and in considering evidence.

The Prosecution appealed the acquittal of Boškoski on the ground that he should have been held responsible for his failure to punish his subordinates for committing the crimes at Ljuboten.

However, the Appeals Chamber disagreed with both the Accused and the Prosecution; Tarčulovski's sentencing was upheld, and so was Boškoski's acquital.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.

By the present decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals: the FSIA is not applicable to individuals so Samantar does not enjoy immunity from the present proceedings by virtue of it. Consequently, proceedings against him can continue. 

The case of Branimir Glavaš marks the first time that a high-ranking Croatian politician was sentenced for war crimes in relation to the Croatian war of independence.

Glavaš has denied any wrongdoing and protested his detention and trial in Croatia by going on a 40-day hunger strike in 2006. He considered his case to be politically motivated and Nikica Grzić, his defence attorney, alleged the Appellate Division Panel’s findings were based on “political, not legal statements.”