Search results

Slavko Šakić was born on 18 November 1972 in the village of Zlavast in the municipality of Bugojno, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In July 1993, he allegedly detained a number of Bosnian Muslims in the Akvarijum motel in Bugojno, taking their money and golden jewellery. Šakić was also suspected of having inflicted physically injuries on some of the detained civilians. On 5 September 2008, Šakić concluded an agreement with the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to which he admitted guilt for the alleged crimes.

On 29 October 2008, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Šakić guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced him to eight years and six months in prison.

The claimant’s father was a French Jew who was interned in France and deported to a concentration camp by the Vichy regime during World War II. The claimant brought proceedings for reparations before the Administrative Tribunal of Paris alleging that the French State and the French railway company that facilitated the transfer and deportation, the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais (SNCF) was at fault.

The case was transferred to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative body in France, for advice. The Conseil d’Etat ruled that the acts of the French State, which contributed to the deportation of persons considered as Jews by the Vichy regime, constituted faults for which its responsibility was engaged. The Advice was the first time that the Conseil had ruled that reparation of such exceptional suffering could not be restricted to financial measures: they implied a solemn acknowledgement of the collective prejudice suffered by those persons, because of the role the French State played in their deportation, quoting the 1964 law suppressing time limitation on crimes against humanity, or the 1995 Presidential statement acknowledging the responsibility of the French State.

The Advice is to be eminently helpful for the 400 similar cases currently pending before French administrative courts. 

Momčilo Krajišnik was found guilty by Trial Chamber I on multiple counts of crimes against humanity for his role in the 1991-1992 events in municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He appealed the decision, representing himself. The Appeals Chamber appointed a counsel as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist his case through the filing of an additional appeal in order to represent Krajišnik's interests.

The Appeals Chamber held that Trial Chamber I made errors with respect to the expansion of the crimes forming part of the joint criminal enterprise of the perpetrators and the manner in which Krajišnik could be held liable for them. Therefore, it acquitted Krajišnik of murder, extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected the arguments of the Prosecution, in which the latter argued that the sentence was not properly determined by Trial Chamber I, and should be raised to life imprisonment.

In light of the acquittals on several counts, the Appeals Chamber reduced Krajišnik's sentence from 27 years to 20 years of imprisonment.

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this time sitting en banc (before all judges of the court), dismissed Arar’s claims for damages on the grounds that it rests upon the Congress to decide on whether such a civil remedy can be made possible and it is not the duty of the judges to decide on whether compensation could be sought.

Emmanuel Constant was born on 27 October 1956 in Haiti. He was the founder of the Revolutionary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), a death squad that terrorised supporters of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was overthrown in September 1991. Members of the FRAPH killed, put in prison, and abused supporters of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during the military regime that ruled Haiti between September 1991 and October 1994. Constant, as the leader of FRAPH, was convicted and found guilty for crimes committed during the military regime. He was ordered to pay $19 million in damages to three women who survived the crimes committed under Constant’s control.