skip navigation

Search results

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

> Refine results with advanced case search

347 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 3 of 70   next > last >>

Sedyono et al.: The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Col. Herman Sedyono et al.

Indictment, 8 Apr 2003, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor

Following the decision of the Indonesian government taken in early 1999 to offer East Timor the opportunity to vote for independence or for autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia, violence erupted in East Timor. The defendants in this case took part in a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians that were in favour of an independent East Timor. One of the accused, Herman Sedyono, was the Bupati (District Administrator) of the Covalima District, one of the 13 districts in East Timor. As such, he was bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the region. Most of the other accused were Commander or just member of the Indonesian security authorities (TNI) or the Indonesian police force (POLRI), which were both promoting autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia.

In 1999, the Mahidi and the Laksaur pro-Indonesian militia groups, with the help of the TNI and POLRI, and with support from the Covalima District administration, repeatedly committed attacks against the Covalima population (mainly against those that were in favour of independence). The attacks involved crimes such as unlawful arrests, destruction of property, detention, and murder. The 16 accused were charged with encouraging, assisting and failing to stop, arrest or prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes.


M.H.: Prosecutor v. M.H.

Verdict, 25 Jun 1997, District Court of Osijek, Croatia (Hrvatska)

The accused M.H. was a Croatian Serb who backed up the occupation of the village of Branjina (eastern Croatia) by the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) as part of paramilitary forces. As a member of the Territorial Defense (TO) in the village, he had absolute authority. The District Court of Osijek found him to be guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment in accordance with article 119 of the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia.


Al Dujail: The Public Prosecutor in the High Iraqi Court et al. v. Saddam Hussein Al Majeed et al.

Judgment, 5 Nov 2006, Iraqi High Tribunal (First Criminal Court), Iraq

In July 1982, a convoy carrying the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was fired upon by unknown individuals as it was visiting the town of Al Dujail. In response to what the President perceived as an assassination attempt but which did not injure anyone, a systematic attack was launched against the residents of Al Dujail as they were fired upon from aircraft and their property was destroyed. A Revolutionary Court sentenced 148 residents to death without trial for their alleged involvement in the assassination attempt. Of those that were hanged, the Tribunal identified a number of children. Countless others died in detention, as a result of torture at the hand of the Investigation Services, or from malnutrition, lack of access to medical care and poor hygienic conditions.

The present decision of the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted seven of the indicted defendants for crimes against humanity in connection with the attack on Al Dujail. Most notably, Saddam Hussein himself was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging along with his brother, Barazan Ibrahim, the head of the Intelligence Services. 


Bignone (Campo de Mayo): Reynaldo Bignone Causa “Campo de Mayo” / Riveros, Santiago Omar y otros s/recurso de casación

Appeals Decision, 7 Dec 2012, Federal Chamber of Criminal Appeals (Cámara Federal de Casación Penal), Argentina

Reynaldo Bignone, born in 1928, was the de facto president of Argentina from 1982 to 1983 and the last dictator to hold power in the country. As such, he was appointed by the military junta and sought to impose amnesty laws for perpetrators of gross human rights violations before transferring power to the democratically elected Raul Alfonsin. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Argentinean Supreme Court overturned these amnesties and opened the way for prosecutions of those involved in the country’s 1976-1983 “Dirty War”. Since then, Reynaldo Bignone was charged and convicted of crimes against humanity in several trials on the basis of his involvement in the Dirty War. 

In the current appeals case, the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for his involvement in 56 cases of murder, torture, deprivation of liberty and illegal break-ins was affirmed. The prison sentences of 17-25 years, received by five other accused, were also affirmed except for one acquittal. 


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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 7 Aug 2006, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, 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. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, an US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgement, as it was confident that a judicial ruling in this case would not interfere with the duties and prerogatives of the executive branch.   


<< first < prev   page 3 of 70   next > last >>