Search results

During the Rwandan genocide Athanase Seromba was a Catholic priest at Nyange parish, Kibuye Prefecture. On 13 December 2006, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted him of aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi refugees who had sought refuge at Nyange parish in order to escape attacks committed against the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that Seromba had assisted in the killing of Tutsi refugees as well as in the commission of acts causing serious bodily or mental harm. Thus, the Chamber convicted him of aiding and abetting the crimes of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.

The Trial Chamber considered the Accused’s authority as a respected Catholic priest, the trust he had from several Tutsi refugees who had taken shelter in his parish to elude massacres and his failure to live up to the trust of the refugees who thought their lives would be safe there as aggravating factors. Seromba’s good reputation prior to the events of 1994, his relative youth at the time of the events and his voluntary surrender to the Tribunal were considered mitigating factors. 

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.

The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).

Two Palestinians living in Gaza, referred to as A and B, were detained in 2002 and 2003, respectively, due to their purported association with Hezbollah. They brought a complaint at the Israeli District Court stating that their detention was unlawful because the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law of 2002, on which their detention orders were based, was not in accordance with the Basic Laws of Israel and infringed principles of international humanitarian law.

After having their case dismissed by the District Court, the plaintiffs appealed at the Israeli Supreme Court. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law was in conformity with the Basic Laws of Israel. In addition, the Supreme Court held that their detention was lawful because there was a chance that they would reconnect with Hezbollah and they could therefore pose a risk to Israel’s national security.

Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalised American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organiser of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans.

On 29 May 2001, El Hage was convicted for conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees engaging in official duties and conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States. In addition, he was found guilty of giving false statements to a federal jury (perjury). On the basis of this conviction, El Hage was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of being released.

On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of El Hage and returned the judgment for reconsideration of the sentence because the District Court made procedural errors. El Hage was sentenced again to life imprisonment.