Search results

Belkacem Bensayah, an Algerian national, was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovine in 2001 on the suspicion of plotting an attack against the United States Embassy in Sarajevo. Together with five other Algerians, Bensayah was turned over to the United States Government and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). Bensayah was one of the plaintiffs in the Boumediene case, in the context of which, the Supreme Court of the United States found, in 2008, that Guantanamo detainees have a right to petition writs of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detainees to challenge the legality of their detention).

In November 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of five of the six plaintiffs. Bensayah, the sixth plaintiff, was denied release.

On 28 June 2010, the District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court, finding that the evidence against Bensayah must be reviewed since the Government changed its position and the evidence upon which the District Court relied in concluding that Bensayah supported the Al-Qaeda is now insufficient to show that he was also part of the organization.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia granted the petition and ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US the government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The US Government appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010. The Court of Appeals considered that the intelligence report, which stood as central evidence against Latif, was entitled to a presumption of regularity and the inconsistencies of the Report are likely the result of imperfect translations. The Court of Appeal also found inconsistencies in Latif’s account of the events. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed the granted habeas corpus petition.

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and development of oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.

The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages. In 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the charges against the defendants for extrajudicial killing and violations of the right to life, security and association. On appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide jurisdiction over claims for violations of international law committed by corporations and not individual persons. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants could not continue and all charges are to be dismissed.    

The United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia convicted a former Serb soldier, Nikola Vuckovic, to pay compensatory damage for crimes committed during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Four former victims of Vuckovic filed the case before the US District Court. The alleged acts took place in Bosanski Samac. The victims had known the defendant for years, since they were all from Bosanski Samac. After the war broke out, the victims were requested to come to the Police Station that had just been taken over by the Serbs. There they were tortured, beaten and assaulted for months. Other detainees died during this detention period. After some time, the detainees were transferred to a warehouse where the torture continued. After the war, all victims fled abroad. They still suffer physical and mental pain due to the abuses.

The US District Court holds Nikola Vuckovic responsible for the acts, by arguing that he was ‘a substantial and proximate cause and contributing factor in the injuries. The Court judges in favour of the victims and condemns Nikola Vuckovic to a 140 million dollar damage claim for the victims.

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA. On appeal, the present decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court.