skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: queen on application maya evans secretary state defence

> Refine results with advanced case search

696 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 30 of 140   next > last >>

Nyiramasuhuko et al.: The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al.

Judgement and Sentence, 24 Jun 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Tanzania

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations that had previously resulted in a civil war in the early 1990s. An Interim Government was established, which developed a plan to eradicate the Tutsi “enemy” with the use of the armed forces and various civilian militia groups including the feared Interahamwe.

The six Accused in the present case all represented military, political or civilian authorities in Butare commune: Nyiramasuhuko was the Minister of Family and Women’s Development; Nsabimana served as the prefect of Butare from April until 17 June 1994; Nteziryayo was a member of the Ministry of the Interior; Kanyabashi was the mayor of Ngoma commune; Ndayambaje was the mayor of Muganza commune and Ntahobali was a leader of a unit of the Interahamwe. Following the replacement of the former prefect of Butare by Nsabimana on 20 April 1994, large scale massacres of Tutsi took place in Butare commune. Thousands were slaughtered with machetes and grenades at Mugombwe Church, Kabuye Hill, Kabakobwe Hill and Matyazo Clinic. In line with the Interim Government’s policy, roadblocks were set up at which Tutsi could be identified, separated, abducted, raped and killed by soldiers and Interhamwe alike. Megaphone announcements were heard throughout Butare town encouraging the Hutu to flush out and eradicate their Tutsi enemy.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted each of the Accused variously for genocide, cnspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement of genocide, the crimes against humanity of extermination, persecution and rape and the war crimes of violence to life and outrage supon personal dignity. Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali and Ndayambaje were sentenced to life imprisonment; Kanybashi, Nteziryayo and Nsabimana to 35, 30 and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively.

The case is currently on appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR. 


Harbury v. Hayden et al.: Jennifer K. Harbury v. Michael V. Hayden et al. / Jennifer K. Harbury on her own behalf and as administratrix of the Estate of Efrain Bamaca—Velasquez, Appellant v. Michael V. Hayden, Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), et al., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 96cv00438), 15 Apr 2008, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, United States

In 2006, Jennifer Harbury, the wife of ex-rebel commander Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez who was killed in Guatemala in the early 1990s, brought a complaint against U.S. governmental officials. Harbury claimed that her husband was captured in 1992 by Guatemalan army officers who were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Harbury claimed that Bamaca was physically abused and tortured during his detention in order to extract information from him about the Guatemalan rebel forces.

Harbury’s tort claim was dismissed because the District Court found that it did not have authority to rule on it since the damage occurred in another state, namely in Guatemala. On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the case involved political questions which are non-justiciable, and, in addition, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Harbury’s tort claim.


John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

Memorandum Opinion, 30 Sep 2009, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

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.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.    


Khieu: Samphân Khieu

Notice of Conclusion of Judicial Investigation, 14 Jan 2010, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, Cambodia


Hodžić : Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Ferid Hodžić

Verdict, 19 May 2010, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the present case, the Court refused the appeals filed by both the Prosecutor’s Office and the aggrieved party Anđa Obradović and upheld the first instance verdict of 29 June 2009. In this verdict, the accused Ferid Hodžić was acquitted of the charges for war crimes against civilians and prisoners of war in the period between May 1992 and 26 January 1993 taking place in the municipality of Vlasenica.


<< first < prev   page 30 of 140   next > last >>