Search results

The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes.

The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. Still, the judge did recognise that a person committing a war crime could be liable under civil law, for example a person who ‘knowingly participates in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’.

The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. The Court of Appeal confirmed this, most importantly stating that this case essentially revolved around citizens from the West Bank and corporations carrying out work in the West Bank. Therefore, the Court held, it would require ‘a great deal of imagination to claim that the action has a serious connection with Quebec’. 

Omar Ahmed Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured by United States forces in Pakistan in 2003 and transferred to detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His first trial before a military commission was due to proceed until the United States Supreme Court ruled that such commissions were unlawful. Following Congress’ enactment of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Khadr was again charged and due to stand trial before the new military commissions for conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, spying and material support for terrorism for his alleged involvement with Al Qaeda.

The present decision is the result of a motion by lawyers for Khadr attempting to halt the proceedings by arguing that the military commissions have no jurisdiction to try child soldiers. The motion was rejected by the Judge on the grounds that nothing in customary international law or international treaties, or indeed in the text of the Military Commissions Act bars proceedings against child soldiers for violations of the laws of war. This decision paved the way for Khadr’s trial to begin in October 2010. It concluded following a plea arrangement in which Khadr pleaded guilty to the charges and received an 8-year sentence. He has recently been transferred to his native Canada to carry out the remainder of his sentence. 

The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 opposed East Pakistan and India to West Pakistan and resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, which became the independent nation of Bangladesh. The conflict commenced as a result of a military operation launched by the State of Pakistan (then West Pakistan) against Bengali civilians, students and armed personnel who were demanding the military regime of the State of Pakistan to either honour the results of the 1970 democratic elections, which had been won by an East Pakistan party, or allow the secession of East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In response, Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians formed the Mukti Bahini and engaged in guerrilla warfare against the West Pakistan Army with the financial, logistical and diplomatic support of India. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was set up in Bangladesh to prosecute those in Bangladesh responsible for committing atrocities in the course of the armed conflict.

The present judgment was rendered by the ICT against Moulana Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar, a member of the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami opposed to an independent Bangladesh. He provided aid to the Pakistani Army and subsequently became the leader of the Al-Badr force, a paramilitary wing of the West Pakistan Army, which operated in East Pakistan against the Bengali nationalist movement. On 21 January 2013, in its first ever judgment, the ICT convicted Azad and sentenced him to death for his crimes. The sentence cannot, however, be carried out until Azad has been located. His trial was held in absentia as he is believed to have fled Bangladesh. 

Hafsat Abiola filed a complaint against General Abdulsalami Abubakar claiming that he is responsible for the death of her parents, Chief MKO Abiola and Kudirat Abiola. In particular, she claimed that as Chief of Defence Staff under Sani Abacha’s military rule (November 1993 – June 1998), and as President of Nigeria (November 1998 - May 1999), General Abubakar was responsible for torturing her father and keeping him in inhumane conditions, as well as for denying him access to a lawyer. In addition, she claimed that the regime is responsible for the death of her mother, who was threatened and killed following a campaign for the release of her husband.

In 2001, General Abubakar was served with summons when he visited the United States.

On 28 September 2007, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, imposed a sanction on the defendant for his failure to appear for deposition. The sanction was an order declaring that the allegations of the plaintiffs had to be taken as established.