skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: presbyterian church sudan talisman energy republic sudan talisman

> Refine results with advanced case search

198 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 16 of 40   next > last >>

Pinochet: Regina (the Crown) v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet; Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ex parte Pinochet

Judgment, 24 Mar 1999, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

The present decision of 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords held that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity in respect of charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture where such conduct was committed after 8 December 1988, the date upon which the 1984 Torture Convention entered into force in the UK. This temporal qualification significantly limited the charges for which Pinochet can be extradited to Spain as the majority of the conduct alleged was either not an extraditable offence or was committed prior to this date. Under English law, it was now for the Home Secretary, then Jack Straw, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed with extradition. 


Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan

Memorandum Opinion, 4 Oct 2001, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

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.


Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan, Minister Yohei Kono, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Opinion of the Court, 27 Jun 2003, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

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. 


Muhimana: The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana

Judgement and Sentence, 28 Apr 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

On 28 April 2005, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR sentenced Mikaeli Muhimana to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Trial Chamber found Muhimana, a former conseiller of Gishyita Sector in Kibuye prefecture, guilty on three counts: genocide, rape as a crime against humanity and murder as a crime against humanity.

The Chamber found Muhimana guilty of murdering several Tutsi civilians, including a pregnant woman whom he had disembowelled in order to see what the foetus looked like. The Chamber found that Muhimana’s active participation in the decapitation of Assiel Kabanda, and the subsequent public display of his severed head also constituted an aggravating factor. The Accused was found criminally liable for committing and abetting rapes as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Tutsi civilian population. He had personally raped several Tutsi women in his home and at other locations. He also raped a girl whom he believed to be Tutsi, and apologized to her when he later found out that she was, in fact, Hutu.


Al Dujail: The Public Prosecutor in the High Iraqi Court et al. v. Saddam Hussein Al Majeed et al.

Opinion, 26 Dec 2006, Iraqi High Tribunal (Appeals Commission), Iraq

In July 1982, a convoy carrying the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was fired upon by unknown individuals as it was visiting the town of Al Dujail. In response to what the President perceived as an assassination attempt but which did not injure anyone, a systematic attack was launched against the residents of Al Dujail as they were fired upon from aircraft and their property was destroyed. A Revolutionary Court sentenced 148 residents to death without trial for their alleged involvement in the assassination attempt. Of those that were hanged, the Tribunal identified a number of children. Countless others died in detention, as a result of torture at the hand of the Investigation Services, or from malnutrition, lack of access to medical care and poor hygienic conditions.

At first instance, the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted seven of the eight defendants charged, including Saddam Hussein who was sentenced to death by hanging along with his brother, Barazan Ibrahim, the head of the Intelligence Services. On appeal, the Appeals Commission of the High Tribunal upheld the convictions and sentences and found cause to increase the sentence of Taha Yassin Ramadan, Deputy Prime Minister and General Commander of the Popular Army, to death. Since the judgement, the Iraqi High Tribunal has come under criticism for the alleged unfairness of its proceedings owing, partly, to the continued interference of the Iraqi government in the trial. 


<< first < prev   page 16 of 40   next > last >>