skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: united states america jama idle ibrahim

> Refine results with advanced case search

363 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 26 of 73   next > last >>

Hereros v. Deutsche Afrika-Linien: Hereros v. Deutsche Afrika-Linien GMBLT & Co.

Opinion of the Court, 10 Apr 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States

Members of the Herero (the Hereros), an African tribe from Namibia, brought a claim against German company Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co. The Hereros claimed that this company used slave labor and ran its own concentration camp during Germany’s occupation of South Africa in the late 19th- and early 20th- century. The Hereros sued the German company for damages suffered during the occupation.

The case was dismissed by the District Court because the Hereros failed to state a claim in their complaint. On 10 April 2007, the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.


Jean et al. v. Dorélien: Marie Jeanne Jean et al. v. Carl Dorélien

Final Judgment, 16 Aug 2007, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, United States

Lexiuste Cajuste, an elementary school teacher who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by Haitian military forces in 1993, and Marie Jeanne Jean, whose husband was killed during the Raboteau Massacre in April 1994, filed a claim against former Haitian Colonel Carl Dorélien. The plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was one of the most powerful members of the military regime that ruled Haiti from October 1991 to September 1994 and that, despite Dorélien’s position and influence, he failed to prevent the abuses committed by the Haitian military. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was responsible for the military discipline and justice but failed to punish his subordinates who committed crimes.

The jury trial found Dorélien culpable for torture, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, and crimes against humanity; and the Court of District ordered him to pay $4.3 million in damages to the plaintiffs.


Ochoa Lizarbe v. Hurtado: Teófila Ochoa Lizarbe et al v. Telmo Ricardo Hurtado Hurtado

Final Judgment, 4 Mar 2008, United States District Court Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, United States

On 14 August 1985, 60 women, children and elderly men were killed in the highlands village of Accomarca in Peru’s southern Andean region of Ayacucho. This massacre is known as the Accomarca Massacre.

The plaintiffs brought a complaint against Telmo Ricardo Hurtado Hurtado (Second Lieutenant (Subteniente) in the Peruvian Army) who was responsible for the command of the soldiers that committed the killings. The plaintiffs sought justice on behalf of all the members of the Asociación de Familiares Afectados por la Violencia Política del Distrito de Accomarca (Association of Relatives of the Victims of Political Violence in Accomarca) who lost relatives in the massacre. Hurtado was found guilty for the crimes committed in connection with the Accomarca Massacre.

On 4 March 2008, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered Hurtado to pay $37 million in damages to the plaintiffs.


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

Order re: Prudential exhaustion, 31 Jul 2009, United States District Court Central District of California, 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.

In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’. However, regarding other claims (of environmental harm, of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and of consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights) the Court held that it could be assessed whether the plaintiffs should first exhaust legal remedies in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, it gave the plaintiffs one month to decide whether they wished to pursue these claims.  


Mamani v. De Lozada & Berzain: Mamani et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada, and Mamani et al. v. Sánchez Berzain

Decision on Appeal, 29 Aug 2011, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States

Nine relatives of people killed during a series of national protests in Bolivia in October 2003, brought a case in the U.S. against the former President of Bolivia, Sánchez de Lozada, and the former Minister of Defence of Bolivia, Sánchez Berzaín. The plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín were responsible for the killing of more than 400 people in Bolivia during the suppression of the protests directed against the government’s policies. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín gave orders to the Bolivian security forces to use deadly force against protestors. The plaintiffs asked for compensation. On 29 August 2011, a U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed their claims because they had not presented enough evidence to establish a link between both Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín and the killings.


<< first < prev   page 26 of 73   next > last >>