Search results

The accused Ivan Hrkač is suspected of committing war crimes against prisoners of war and war crimes against civilians during the armed conflict between the HVO and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993.

At the present moment, Ivan Hrkač is beyond the reach of the judicial authorities.

Colonel Nicholas Carranza served nearly thirty years as an officer in the armed forces of El Salvador. Later, he was El Salvador’s Vice-Minister of Defence and Public Security from October 1979 until January 1981. In this period, the Salvadoran Security Forces carried out systematic repression and human rights abuses against opponents of the military dictatorship that ruled the country at the time.

On 10 December 2003, the Center for Justice and Accountability and the Tennessee law firm of Bass, Berry & Sims filed a complaint against Carranza on behalf of five plaintiffs.

On 18 November 2005, a jury found Carranza guilty for the abduction, torture, insult, imprisonment and killing of the plaintiffs. He was ordered to pay $6 million in damages.

On 19 March 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the jury’s verdict.

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In the first instance verdict discussed here, the Thai Court denied the US petition to extradite Bout, stating that the crimes of which Bout was accused did not fall within the scope of the Extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand. Thailand did not consider the FARC to be a terrorist organisation and the Court held that the US accused Bout of a political offense, for which extradition was not possible. Moreover, the Court held that the crimes of which Bout was accused were not punishable in Thailand, as the offense was committed against ‘foreigners outside Thailand’.

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 of 2001.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.

By the present decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals: the FSIA is not applicable to individuals so Samantar does not enjoy immunity from the present proceedings by virtue of it. Consequently, proceedings against him can continue.