skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: rigoberta menchu rios montt 'guatemala genocide case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

669 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 119 of 134   next > last >>

Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.

Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court, 2 Nov 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

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.


Doe et al. v. Constant: Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III v. Emmanuel Constant, a/k/a Toto Constant

Summary Order, 1 Dec 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

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.


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


Al Odah: Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah v. United States of America

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 30 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah was captured in Afghanistan for his involvement with the Taliban. Since 2002, Al Odah has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detained person to challenge the legality of his detention) in May 2002. In 2008, the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States, considered that US federal courts have jurisdiction to hear petitions of habeas corpus. The District Court denied Al Odah’s petition on the grounds that the evidence adduced by the US Government was enough to permit his detention. 

Al Odah appealed the District Court’s judgment raising challenges with respect to the procedure admitting evidence as well as the sufficiency of evidence to support that he was part of the al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

The Court of Appeals dismissed both grounds of appeal since it did not find any errors either in the District Court’s procedure on admitting evidence or in the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the US Government. In this light, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Al Odah’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.


Kujundžić: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Predrag Kujundžić

Second Instance Verdict, 4 Oct 2010, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Predrag Kujundžić was born on 30 January 1961 in the village of Suho Polje in the municipality of Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kujundžić was the commander of the Predini vukovi military unit, which functioned as part of the army of the Republika Srpska.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina alleged that on 12 June 1992, Kujundžić occupied the village of Čivčije Bukovačke, and subsequently blew up the village’s mosque, plundered and set on fire some houses, and ordered that all Bosniak men gathered in front of the village’s culture center. After the men (160 in total) were gathered, they were exposed to a several hours’ long physical and mental abuse by Kujundžić and his unit members. Subsequently, all men were taken to the Perčin disco camp located in the place of Vila in the Doboj municipality, where they were confined on inadequate premises and exposed to every-day abuses by various groups of soldiers who could freely enter the camp. 

On 4 October 2010, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Kujundžić guilty and sentenced him to 17 years imprisonment.


<< first < prev   page 119 of 134   next > last >>