Search results

In this landmark case, fourteen Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, requesting judicial review of their indefinite detention without charges. 

Revisiting the holding in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that US courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in the course of armed conflict and subsequently detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Rasul was found to differ from Eisentrager in the “plenary and exclusive jurisdiction” held by the US over Guantanamo; the Court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges from Guantanamo detainees under the terms of the general federal habeas statute.

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

Residing in exile in Senegal, victims of Habré’s regime instituted proceedings against him in Belgium on the basis of Belgium’s universal jurisdiction law. In order to try Habré, Belgium requested Senegal to extradite him. By the present decision, the Court of Appeal of Dakar held that it was incompetent to grant the request as Habré enjoys immunity from jurisdiction by virtue of his position as the former Head of State of the Republic of Chad. This decision is the precursor to a line of litigation that will culminate in the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding Senegal’s obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré.

Members of the Herero (the Hereros), an African tribe from Namibia, brought a claim against German company Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co. The Hereros claimed that this company used slave labor and ran its own concentration camp during Germany’s occupation of South Africa in the late 19th- and early 20th- century. The Hereros sued the German company for damages suffered during the occupation.

The case was dismissed by the District Court because the Hereros failed to state a claim in their complaint. On 10 April 2007, the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

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.   

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. In first-instance, the Court convicted them of war crimes against civilians but the brothers appealed against this verdict. The defence had branded several witness testimonies to be inconsistent and contradictory, but the Court’s Appeal Panel held in second instance that the testimonies were consistent on the most important aspects. Discrepancies were explainable, according to the Appeal Panel, and to this extend the appeal was rejected. However, Goran Damjanović had also been convicted for illegal manufacturing and trade of weapons or explosive substances, and the Appeal Panel considered it unproven that the weapons found in his family’s home belonged to him. To that extend, the verdict was revoked and a re-trial ordered.