168 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 17 of
34
next >
last >>
Bowoto v. Chevron: Larry Bowoto et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al.
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement on Plaintiffs’ Crimes Against Humanity Claim, 14 Aug 2007, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States
The case arose as a result of three brutal firearm attacks upon unarmed protesters and innocent citizens in Nigeria between May 1998 and January 1999. The plaintiffs allege that in each instance, the Chevron Corporation acted in concert with the Nigerian military and police to plan, order and execute the attacks including through the participation of Chevron security personnel and equipment, the payment of funds to the military and police, and the purchase of equipment and materials including ammunition. The plaintiffs were either summarily executed, seriously injured, burned in a fire set during the attack or tortured by the military and police thereafter. Such acts were intended to force the plaintiffs to cease their protests against Chevron’s damage to the lands and the plaintiffs’ livelihood and discourage any further behaviour.
Bowoto v. Chevron: Larry Bowoto et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al.
Opinion, 10 Sep 2010, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States
The case arose as a result of three brutal firearm attacks upon unarmed protesters and innocent citizens in Nigeria between May 1998 and January 1999. The plaintiffs allege that in each instance, the Chevron Corporation acted in concert with the Nigerian military and police to plan, order and execute the attacks including through the participation of Chevron security personnel and equipment, the payment of funds to the military and police, and the purchase of equipment and materials including ammunition. The plaintiffs were either summarily executed, seriously injured, burned in a fire set during the attack or tortured by the military and police thereafter. Such acts were intended to force the plaintiffs to cease their protests against Chevron’s damage to the lands and the plaintiffs’ livelihood and discourage any further behaviour.
The first case of its kind to be decided by a jury trial, Bowoto v. Chevron Corporation was decided in favour of Chevron, clearing them of all liability. The present decision is an appeal by the plaintiffs, which was ultimately unsuccessful as the Court of Appeals upheld the judgement of the District Court.
Đukić (Željko) et al.: Željko Đukić
Judgment, 22 Sep 2010, Trial Chamber, War Crimes Department, Higher Court in Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro
Pinochet: Regina 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
Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgement in the Cause, 25 Nov 1998, 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. By a decision of 25 November 1998, the House of Lords in a 3:2 majority held that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings and could therefore be extradited.
G.
Order of the Second Senate of 24 June 2003, 24 Jun 2003, Bundesverfassungsgericht / Federal Constitution Court, Germany
The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.
On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.
The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.
<< first
< prev
page 17 of
34
next >
last >>