skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: dolly m e filartiga & joel filartiga americo norberto peña-irala

> Refine results with advanced case search

350 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 15 of 70   next > last >>

John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

Memorandum and Opinion, 27 Aug 2008, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 


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.


Tacaqui: The Prosecutor v. Florencio Tacaqui

Judgement, 9 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. Members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) worked together with local police forces and pro-autonomy militia groups to perpetrate a campaign of violence against suspected independence supporters.

The Accused, Florencio Tacaqui, was an advisor and member of the Sakunar militia group, which operated in Passabe. In 1999, both prior to and after s referendum in August in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, it carried out a number of attacks. In particular, the Tacaqui was involved in the abduction, detention and beating of approximately 40 independence supporters at the home of a Sakunar chief. He was also involved in the attack on a village in which numerous individuals died, homes were burnt down and livestock stolen. He was convicted for 4 counts of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panel was unable to convict him for the Passabe massacre in which 47 individuals were marched from their homes to a remote area and executed. Witness testimony was contradictory and the evidence inconclusive to support his presence at the scene. The remaining 10 individuals with whom Tacaqui was indicted remain at large. 


Schneider v. Kissinger: René Schneider et al. v. Henry Alfred Kissinger and United States of America et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court, 28 Jun 2005, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

In the aftermath of the 1970 Chilean presidential elections, General Rene Schneider was killed as several military officers attempted to kidnap him. His sons allege that Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon, knew of the plans to kidnap Schneider and did nothing to stop it. The Court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that the claim made by Schneider’s sons could not be viewed separately from the context of US foreign policy at that time and that the judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics.

The Court of Appeals agreed, refusing to differentiate between this particular alleged decision and the general tendencies of foreign policy in 1970. It therefore confirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the Constitution had provided Congress with sufficient instruments to check the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy. It should be left to politicians to answer political questions, the Court reasoned, not to judges. 


Boumediene v. Bush: Lakhdar Boumediene, et al. v. George W. Bush / Khaled A. F. Al Odah, et al. v. United States of America

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 20 Feb 2007, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US Government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.


<< first < prev   page 15 of 70   next > last >>