Search results

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.

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for complicity in war crimes committed by Taylor’s regime and the supply of weapons. Kouwenhoven appealed, arguing that the amnesty scheme approved by Charles Taylor shortly before his resignation prevented him from being prosecuted. 

In a decision of 18 December 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld Kouwenhoven’s conviction, finding it did not have the competence to assess the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Liberian law and that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the amnesty scheme did not prevent the prosecution of Kouwenhoven due to the circumstances in which the scheme was introduced and the obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes. 

The case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), represents a landmark legal proceeding focused on the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an Islamist militant, was charged with the war crime of deliberately attacking historic and religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012. These sites, revered for their historical and cultural significance, were targeted during a period of armed conflict in the region. 

Al Mahdi's case is notable for several reasons. Firstly, it was one of the first instances where an individual was prosecuted at the ICC solely for the destruction of cultural heritage. This underscored the increasing international recognition of the importance of preserving cultural history amidst armed conflicts. Secondly, Al Mahdi's admission of guilt – a rare occurrence in international criminal law – expedited the legal proceedings and highlighted the potential for reconciliation and acknowledgment of wrongdoing in such contexts. 

Ultimately, Al Mahdi was convicted under Articles 8(2)(e)(iv) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute and was sentenced to nine years in prison. His conviction served as a significant precedent, reinforcing the message that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a serious crime under international law and will not be tolerated.

Julio Simón was a member of the Argentinean Federal Police during the military dictatorship of 1976-1983 and had been charged with kidnapping, torture, and forced disappearance of persons. Julio Simón argued as his defence that he benefited of immunity from prosecution under the Amnesty Laws of 1986-1987.

In 2001 a lower court had declared the Amnesty Laws unconstitutional. After successive appeals the issue came before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Amnesty Laws were unconstitutional and void for several reasons. First, since the adoption of the Amnesty Laws, international human rights law developed principles that prohibited states from making laws aimed at avoiding the investigation of crimes against humanity and the prosecution of the responsible people. By incorporating the ACHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into the Constitution, Argentina assumed the duty to prosecute crimes against humanity under international law. Because the Amnesty Laws were designed to leave serious human rights violations unpunished, they violated these treaties and the Constitution of Argentina. Moreover, in the Barrios Altos v. Peru case the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that states should not establish any measures that would prevent the  investigation and prosecution of serious human rights violations.