190 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 18 of
38
next >
last >>
Manson v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court: Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) (Claimant) v. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court (First Defendant) and Carmarthen Justices (Second Defendant)
Judgement, 15 Oct 2003, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Great Britain (UK)
In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.
Bouzari v. Iran: Houshang Bouzari, Fereshteh Yousefi, Shervin Bouzari and Narvan Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Judgment on appeal from the judgment of Justice Katherine E. Swinton of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 1, 2002, 30 Jun 2004, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Canada
In June 1993, Houshang Bouzari was in Tehran for business when he refused to accept the assistance offered by the then Iranian President for bringing into effect a project in an oil and gas field in Iran. Following Bouzari’s refusal to accept the offer, agents of the state of Iran entered his apartment, robbed and abducted him. He was put into prison where he was held for several months. After Bouzari was released in 1994, he and his family fled to Europe and eventually ended up in Canada in 1998.
On 24 November 2000, the Bouzari’s brought an action before the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario against the Islamic Republic of Iran and asked for compensation for damages suffered. On 1 May 2002, the Court dismissed the case because it did not have authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case as the claim was made against a foreign state.
On 30 June 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Justice.
Bancoult v. McNamara: Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al.
Memorandum Opinion, 21 Dec 2004, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.
In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies, and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 21 December 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the named individual defendants were all federal employees at the time (e.g. former Secretaries of Defense, Admirals) and therefore benefited from immunity from prosecution under US law. Alleged violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act do not fall within the accepted exception to immunity because the Act itself does not create substantive rights and obligations that can be violated.
Morina: War Crimes Prosecutor v. Sinan Morina
Indictment, 13 Jul 2005, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro
Sinan Morina is an ethnic Kosovo Albanian and was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during the non-international armed conflict between the KLA, on one side, and the police and military units of the SFR Yugoslavia, on the other. He was charged with participating, together with 34 members of KLA, in the killing of nine Serbian men, expulsion, imprisonment, torture and rape of Serbian civilians, and large-scale destruction of civilian property and religious objects (Orthodox churches St. Spas and St. Nikola) in the village of Opteruša between 17 and 21 July 1998. The purpose of this armed attack was to ethnically cleanse the area from all non-Albanian population and create an ethnically pure Albanian territory.
Morina was acquitted by the Belgrade District Court on 20 December 2007 due to lack of credible evidence. The Supreme Court of Serbia reversed the verdict of the War Crimes Court in 2009 and ordered a re-trial. He was arrested in Croatia on 24 February 2010 following an international arrest warrant issued by the Serbian authorities.
John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.
Memorandum, 12 Jan 2007, United States Court of Appeals, 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.
After the District Court allowed the case to proceed in part, the plaintiffs presented an amended complaint, which was assessed again by the District Court. It allowed most of these claims, which were based on the laws of the District of Columbia, to proceed. Exxon appealed to this ruling, but the Court of Appeals stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court also refused to compel the District Court to dismiss the case.
<< first
< prev
page 18 of
38
next >
last >>