Search results

Between December 1944 and April 1945 Michael Seifert (also known as Misha), a Ukranian national who had joined the SS, served as a guard at the Bolzano transit concentration camp. He moved to Canada in 1951, obtaining Canadian citizenship by claiming he was born in Estonia and withholding the fact that he had been a Nazi SS prison guard.

On 24 November 2000, the Italian military tribunal of Verona convicted Michael Seifert in absentia of 11 murders committed at a prison camp in Bolzano during World War Two and sentenced him to life in prison. The Italian government started a procedure to have him extradited to Italy and the Canadian authorities started a procedure to have him stripped of his Canadian Citizenship and extradite him. Seifert acknowledged that he was at the Bolzano camp, but denied being involved in atrocities. The Federal Court of Canada ruled that the government was within its rights to revoke Michael Seifert's citizenship as he had lied to obtain it. The Court held that Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian Citizenship by misrepresentation of his activities in World War II and non-disclosure of material facts. During the 1950’s, Canada had an immigration policy that barred former members of the SS and related units such as the SD (the German intelligence agency to the SS) from gaining entry to Canada and obtaining citizenship. Therefore the Court ruled that had he told the truth, Seifert would not have been allowed into Canada.

The present case concerned the role of Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza in the Radio television libre des mille collines (RTLM), that of Hassan Ngeze in the publication of the Kangura newspaper, as well as Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s involvement in the Coalition pour la défense de la République (CDR) and the role of Hassan Ngeze in the killing of Tutsis in Gisenyi prefecture on 7 April 1994.

Trial Chamber I originally found the Accused guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity and sentenced each Accused to a single term of life imprisonment. However, it has reduced the sentence imposed on Barayagwiza to 35 years, taking into account the violation of his rights.

The Accused appealed their convictions and sentence. The Appeals Chamber reversed certain findings of the Trial Chamber and affirmed others. With regard Nahimana, the Appeals Chamber reduced his sentence to 30 years’ imprisonment. Barayagwiza’s sentence was reduced to 32 years of imprisonment. Finally, the Appeals Chamber substituted Ngeze’s life sentence by a prison term of 35 years.  

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

By the present decision, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him. 

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55^th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit.

Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. The Court found that the government had proved by a preponderance of evidence that al Bihani had supported the Taliban: faithfully serving in an al Qaeda affiliated fighting unit that is directly supporting the Taliban by helping to prepare the meals of its entire fighting force suffices.

During the armed conflict that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia pitting Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) was the official military formation of the Bosnian Croats. The Accused, Tomo Jurinović, was a member of the HVO wing in Kotor Varoš. On 31 July 1992, he is alleged to have forcibly removed a family from their home in Novo Selo with three other members of the HVO. The family was then marched to the village of Ravne where they were detained by the Accused and others on the premises of a school. During this march, the family was routinely abused and one of its members died.

The Accused was indicted for war crimes by the Prosecutor’s Office in the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon request of the Prosecutor and with support of counsel for the Accused, the Court decided to transfer the case to the court of Banja Luka. The factors that were taken into consideration by the Court included the simplicity of the case by comparison to others before the Court (the Accused did not occupy the role of a commander, there was only one deceased, the case concerned one incident), the workload of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office and the expenses that could be saved by transferring the case.