skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: canadian association against impunity caai anvil mining ltd

> Refine results with advanced case search

679 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 126 of 136   next > last >>

Ahmed v. Magan: Abukar H. Ahmed v. Abdi Aden Magan

Stipulated Revised Pretrial Order, 10 Jan 2011, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, United States

Colonel Abdi Aden Magan, the defendant, was a member of the Marehan sub-clan of the Darod clan and held high positions (as Colonel and Chief) at the National Security Service (NSS) of Somalia. The plaintiff, Abukar Hassan Ahmed, was a human rights attorney and law professor at the Somali National University. He was detained at the NSS for approximately three months. During his detention, he suffered severe physical and psychological injuries.  Ahmed claimed that, as a Chief of NSS Investigations, Colonel Magan was responsible for ordering and participating in his interrogation and torture.


Muvunyi: Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 1 Apr 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

In 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan army and was stationed at the École des Sous-Officiers in Butare Prefecture.

On 11 February 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Muvunyi of direct and public incitement to genocide based on his statements made at a public meeting at the Gikore Trade Centre in Butare prefecture in early May 1994. He was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.   

Muvunyi appealed his conviction and sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn his conviction. The Prosecution also appealed the judgment and requested the Appeals Chamber to increase the sentence to 25 years of imprisonment.

The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed both appeals and upheld the Accused’s sentence to 15 years of imprisonment.

On 6 March 2012, the President of the ICTR, Judge Vagn Joensen, granted Muvunyi's application for early release since more than three quarters of his sentence had been served.


American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice: American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Department of Justice et al.

Memorandum Opinion, 9 Sep 2011, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


Ntawukulilyayo: Dominique Ntawukulilyayo v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 14 Dec 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was the sub-prefect of the Gisaraga sub-prefecture within Butare prefecture, in Rwanda, from 21 September 1990 until he left Rwanda in July 1994.

On 3 August 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Mr. Ntawukulilyayo of genocide for ordering, as well as aiding and abetting, the killings of Tutsi civilians at Kabuye hill in April 1994. He was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Ntawukulilyayo appealed his conviction. On 14 December 2011, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR acquitted him of the charge of ordering the killings at Kabuye hill. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber agreed with the Trial Chamber that the Accused was guilty of aiding and abetting genocide by instructing the refugees who had gathered at Gisaraga market to move to Kabuye hill, and by transporting soldiers who participated in the attack at Kabuye hill on 23 April 1994. His sentence was reduced to a term of 20 years of imprisonment.  


Al-Zahrani & Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.: Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254), 21 Feb 2012, United States Court of Appeals, United States

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.


<< first < prev   page 126 of 136   next > last >>