skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: dolly m e filartiga & joel filartiga americo norberto peña-irala

> Refine results with advanced case search

350 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 27 of 70   next > last >>

Fuštar: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Dušan Fuštar

Verdict, 21 Apr 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Criminal Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In this case appearing before the Criminal Division, the accused Dušan Fuštar was found guilty for crimes against humanity regarding his participation in the running of the Keraterm camp in Prijedor municipality. He was sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment after he entered a plea agreement with the Prosecutor’s Office.

This marked the first time that a case referred to the Court of BiH by the ICTY (in the case of Željko Mejakić et al.) was settled through a plea agreement. The Court found Dušan Fuštar guilty and sentenced him to nine years of imprisonment.


Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.

Appeals Judgment, 30 Jun 2008, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The US District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.


Šakić (Slavko): Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Slavko Šakić

Verdict, 29 Oct 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Slavko Šakić was born on 18 November 1972 in the village of Zlavast in the municipality of Bugojno, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In July 1993, he allegedly detained a number of Bosnian Muslims in the Akvarijum motel in Bugojno, taking their money and golden jewellery. Šakić was also suspected of having inflicted physically injuries on some of the detained civilians. On 5 September 2008, Šakić concluded an agreement with the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to which he admitted guilt for the alleged crimes.

On 29 October 2008, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Šakić guilty of war crimes against civilians and sentenced him to eight years and six months in prison.


Mohamed v. Dataplan: Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, Ahmed Agiza, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, Bisher Al-Rawi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and the United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee

Opinion, 8 Sep 2010, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing, on behalf of five individuals from Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, Italy and Egypt. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been victims of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme – covert operations whereby individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism were secretly detained, transferred all over the world by “black flights” and taken to “black sites” or secret prisons where they were tortured for years. The role of Jeppesen – a company specialised in the aviation sector, providing navigational information, crew and fleet management solutions, and other services in the sector – in this practice was, allegedly, that the company facilitated the CIA’s black flights, inter alia,by providing airports with false flight plans to conceal all information about the aircrafts.

In first instance, after the U.S. government intervened in the case on the side of Jeppesen, the claim was dismissed immediately as the California District Court found that the state secret doctrine prevented it from reviewing the case. This judgment was partly revoked in appeal when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that defendants had not properly proven that the state secret doctrine was applicable; the case was remanded for rehearing, though. Ultimately, in its 6-5 majority decision of 8 September 2010, the full bench of the Appeals Court ruled that in the current case the state secret doctrine indeed applied, concluding that ruling in the case would be impossible due to substantial information being “privileged” or non-disclosable. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.


Corrie v. Israel: Estate of the Late Rachel Corrie et al. v. The State of Israel - Ministry of Defense

Judgment, 28 Aug 2012, District Court of Haifa, Israel

On 16 March 2003 American Rachel Corrie, together with other International Solidarity Movement members, protested in the "Philadelphi Corridor" in the Rafiah area of the Gaza Strip against the demolition of Palestinian houses in the area. Two bulldozers and an Israel Defense Force (IDF) tank were present. When one of the bulldozers was driving towards a house in order to demolish it, Rachel stood in front of it to protect it and the inhabitants, meanwhile climbing the growing pile of dirt that was formed in front of the bulldozer. At a certain moment she slipped, fell and got stuck under the dirt and the bulldozer. After her fellow protesters made the bulldozer's operator aware of the situation, she was removed from underneath and taken to the hospital, where she died. 

Rachel's parents filed a lawsuit against Israel and the IDF for killing or negligently causing the death of their daughter. 

The Haifa District Court dismissed their claims, stating that the bulldozer's operator had never intended to kill Rachel and had also not been able to see her due to the "blind spot" in front of the bulldozer blade. Furthermore, it found, Rachel had taken the risk of entering the closed-off area and chose to climb the pile of dirt, thus putting herself in the dangerous situation. The Court concluded that she "was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity""; therefore, "the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action".


<< first < prev   page 27 of 70   next > last >>