725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 105 of
145
next >
last >>
El Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 8 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States
In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.
In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.
On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.
On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals ordered that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court).
On 8 June 2010, the Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of El-Shifa’s claims on the grounds that the question brought before the Court remained a political question despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to characterize the case differently. Accordingly, the claims could not be heard by the court.
Popović et al.: The Prosecutor v. Popović et al
Judgment (Public Redacted), 10 Jun 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
The Bosnian Serb Forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and Žepa between March and September 1995.
After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, the men were separated from the women, children and elderly, and transported to locations where they were detained and killed.
The Trial Chamber found that these acts constituted genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Chamber found that there were two separate criminal plans, the first of which aimed to murder the Bosnian Muslim men, and the second to remove the civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa.
For their acts and omissions, the seven accused were found guilty on several counts. The Chamber found all of the accused responsible on counts of crimes against humanity. Popović, Beara, Nikolić, and Borovčanin were found guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war, and with the exception of Borovčanin, they were also found guilty on charges of genocide.
While Popović and Beara received a punishment of life imprisonment, the rest received sentences between 5 and 35 years of imprisonment.
Bazaramba: Prosecutor v. François Bazaramba
Judgment , 11 Jun 2010, Porvoo District Court (now District Court of Itä-Uusimaa), Finland
Barhoumi v. Obama et al.: Sufyian Barhoumi v. Barack Obama et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 11 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States
Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).
The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001. Barhoumi challenged the District Court’s decision, arguing that the evidence upon which the decision was based do not prove that he was “part of” an al-Qaeda-associated organization.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Barhoumi, finding that the adduced evidence was sufficient to warrant his detention under the 2001 AUMF. Accordingly, the District Court’s decision was affirmed.
Cabrera v. Jiménez Naranjo: Jesús Cabrera Jaramillo, Jane Doe and John Doe. v. Carlos Mario Jiménez Naranjo
Plaintiffs' Complaint for Extrajudicial Killing; Torture; Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; War Crimes; and Crimes Against Humanity; Jury Trial Demanded , 14 Jun 2010, District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States
<< first
< prev
page 105 of
145
next >
last >>