skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: polyukhovich commonwealth australia 'war crimes act case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

710 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 137 of 142   next > last >>

El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company et al. v. United States of America

Memorandum Order, 28 Mar 2007, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

In March 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment, in which it sought to the reinstate their defamation and law of nations claims. The District Court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiffs did not adduce any new evidence or arguments to support that an error of law was made during the earlier decision of November 2005.


Mothers of Srebrenica v. the Netherlands and the UN: Mothers of Srebrenica et al. v. State of The Netherlands and the United Nations

Judgment in the Incidental Proceedings, 10 Jul 2008, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

In July 1995, the safe haven of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces resulting in the deaths of between 8 000 and 10 000 individuals. Members of the Dutch battalion who were responsible for the safeguarding of the enclave were completely overrun by the forces of General Mladic.

In 2007, a civil action was filed before the District Court of The Hague by 10 women whose family members died in the genocide as well the Mothers of Srebrenica, a Dutch association representing 6 000 survivors. They are demanding compensation from the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by alleging that both are responsible for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica. In the present decision, the District Court of The Hague determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the United Nations enjoyed absolute immunity from proceedings. 


El Hage et al.: United States of America v. Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-’Owhali, Wadih El Hage

Appeals Decision, 24 Nov 2008, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Unites States of America, United States

Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalised American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organiser of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans.

On 29 May 2001, El Hage was convicted for conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees engaging in official duties and conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States. In addition, he was found guilty of giving false statements to a federal jury (perjury). On the basis of this conviction, El Hage was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of being released.

On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of El Hage and returned the judgment for reconsideration of the sentence because the District Court made procedural errors. El Hage was sentenced again to life imprisonment.


Kalimanzira: The Prosecutor v. Callixte Kalimanzira

Judgement, 22 Jun 2009, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Callixte Kalimanzira was the Minister of Interior during the genocide in Rwanda.

In its judgment of 22 June 2009, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR noted that, on 23 April 1994, Kalimanzira went to Kabuye hill in Butare prefecture with soldiers and policemen, where thousands of Tutsi refugees were attacked and killed. The Accused’s role in luring Tutsis to Kabuye hill and his subsequent assistance in providing armed reinforcement substantially contributed to the overall attack. Therefore, the Chamber found the Accused guilty of aiding and abetting genocide at Kabuye hill. The Chamber further found him guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide on several occasions, including at the Jaguar roadblock, the Kajyanama roadblock, and the Nyabisagara football field on different dates in April 1994, and at the Gisagara marketplace at the end of May 1994.

The Trial Chamber sentenced the Accused to 30 years imprisonment.   


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.


<< first < prev   page 137 of 142   next > last >>