Search results

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux. In the present decision, the Court held that the SNCF were acting under the command of the German authorities and could not therefore be held responsible.

During the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the Serb Army overran a Bosniak settlement on 2 June 1992, two brothers took part in beating a group of approximately 20 to 30 Bosniak men. The Court convicted them for war crimes against civilians. As some of the victims were injured, and all of them had surrendered, when the brother started their onslaught, they had attained the status of civilian under international humanitarian law. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to establish that the brothers had intentionally targeted Bosniaks, in the context of the armed conflict, and that they had intentionally inflicted severe pain on them. Zoran Damjanović was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Goran Damjanović was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment, as he was also convicted for illegal manufacturing and trade of weapons or explosive materials.   

In the morning of 20 June 1992, a group of armed soldiers entered the settlement of Hlapčevići and surrounded the homes of Serb inhabitants. Ramić ordered these armed soldiers to take persons out of their houses, tie their hands with a cord and search their houses. After that, Ramić ordered them to move to the Youth Center of the municipality. At a certain point, the men were stopped and lined up against the wall of a house. One of them was asked for information regarding hidden weapons and minefields. When the questions remained unanswered, the accused shot at him and at the other civilians. He also shot a second time when they were lying on the ground. Three men died instantly, and one succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Two were seriously injured.

 On 17 July 2007 by first instance verdict, Niset Ramić was found guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced to 30 years compound long-term imprisonment sentence.

Two Palestinians living in Gaza, referred to as A and B, were detained in 2002 and 2003, respectively, due to their purported association with Hezbollah. They brought a complaint at the Israeli District Court stating that their detention was unlawful because the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law of 2002, on which their detention orders were based, was not in accordance with the Basic Laws of Israel and infringed principles of international humanitarian law.

After having their case dismissed by the District Court, the plaintiffs appealed at the Israeli Supreme Court. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law was in conformity with the Basic Laws of Israel. In addition, the Supreme Court held that their detention was lawful because there was a chance that they would reconnect with Hezbollah and they could therefore pose a risk to Israel’s national security.

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the Navy-Marine Corps Court Trial Judiciary rendered a judgment, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCTJ ruled that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of “unlawful command influence”. According to the NMCTJ, the presence of someone with Ewers’ reputation, who had strong views regarding Chessani’s guilt, could have influenced the prosecutor and legal advisers. Therefore, charges against him were dismissed.