skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: vincent brown k vincent bajinja

> Refine results with advanced case search

167 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 18 of 34   next > last >>

Demjanjuk: State of Israel v. Ivan (John) Demjanjuk

Decision on Petitions Concerning Ivan (John) Demjanjuk, 18 Aug 1993, Supreme Court of Israel, Israel

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas.

John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian national and a retired auto-worker residing in the United States, was extradited to Israel to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by him during his time as a guard at the concentration camp Treblinka, Poland. He was convicted by the District Court of Jerusalem and then acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel on the grounds of mistaken identity. The Court found that although the evidence established that Demjanjuk was a Wachtman – an individual trained at a Russian camp to assist the Germans - there was a reasonable doubt that he was Ivan the Terrible, the notorious guard at Treblinka responsible for a number of crimes.

The present decision is a petition by 10 civil parties for new trial proceedings to be brought against Demjanjuk on the basis of his involvement not with the Treblinka camp, but with the camp at Sobibor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding that new proceedings might violate the rule on double jeopardy, which prohibits individuals being judged twice for the same conduct. 


Manek et al.: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Manek et al.

Indictment, 28 Feb 2003, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor


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. 


Sarei v. Rio Tinto: Alexis Holyweek Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto PLC and Rio Tinto Limited

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 16 Dec 2008, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 


Ahmed v. Magan: Abukar H. Ahmed v. Abdi Aden Magan

Stipulated Revised Pretrial Order, 10 Jan 2011, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, United States

Colonel Abdi Aden Magan, the defendant, was a member of the Marehan sub-clan of the Darod clan and held high positions (as Colonel and Chief) at the National Security Service (NSS) of Somalia. The plaintiff, Abukar Hassan Ahmed, was a human rights attorney and law professor at the Somali National University. He was detained at the NSS for approximately three months. During his detention, he suffered severe physical and psychological injuries.  Ahmed claimed that, as a Chief of NSS Investigations, Colonel Magan was responsible for ordering and participating in his interrogation and torture.


<< first < prev   page 18 of 34   next > last >>