skip navigation

Search results

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

> Refine results with advanced case search

351 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 32 of 71   next > last >>

Manson v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court: Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) (Claimant) v. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court (First Defendant) and Carmarthen Justices (Second Defendant)

Judgement, 15 Oct 2003, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Great Britain (UK)

In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.


Blaškić: The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić

Judgment, 29 Jul 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

Tihomir Blaškić was brought before the ICTY for his role as Commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Council during the events that took place in the area of Lašva Valley (Bosnia and Herzegovina) between May 1992 and January 1994. The Trial Chamber found him responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 45 years of imprisonment. 

The Appeals Chamber found numerous errors in the trial judgment. 

Firstly, it held that the mental requirement for the mode of responsibility of ordering a crime under the Statute of the Tribunal was erroneously determined. Convicting Blaškić on the basis of the same facts under two separate modes of responsibility was also found to be an error. Secondly, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber made errors in its assessment of the contextual requirements of crimes against humanity. And thirdly, the Appeals Chamber acquitted Blaškić of several charges committed in various locations in central Bosnia since it found that the prerequisite elements of these crimes have not been fulfilled.

The Appeals Chamber concluded by reducing Blaškić' sentence to 9 years prison.


Pedro: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Francisco Pedro

Judgement, 14 Apr 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor form 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and a number of militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign of abuse against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Francisco Pedro, was a member of the Firmi Merah Putih (FIRMI) militia group. On 15 September 1999, he and other militia members abducted three suspected independence supporters from their homes, bundled them into a taxi and drove them to a dark clearing where they were to be killed. The Accused stabbed two of the victims, who died, whilst a third succeeded in escaping. The Accused on another event also acted as a guard at a FIRMI commander’s home where a number of independence supporters were detained and repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten. For his involvement, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder and other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. 


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

Memorandum, 14 Oct 2005, 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. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  


Evans et al.: Regina v. Evans et al.

Decision following submissions of no case to answer, 3 Nov 2005, General Court Martial, Colchester, Great Britain (UK)

Seven U.K. soldiers were on patrol in Iraq on 11 May 2003, with the mission to look out for and halt persons attempting to smuggle money via neighbouring Iran. In the afternoon, a white Toyota pick-up truck came near to their checkpoint, but then drove away as if it was trying to avoid it. The patrollers decided to chase the car. They followed it until the village of Al-Ferkah, where they boxed the car with their vehicles. What happened then, is not entirely clear; what is known, though, is that force was used against both occupants; they were later taken to a hospital, but one of them, the 18 year old Nadhem Abdullah, was severely injured at his head and therefore sent to the Basra hospital for specialist treatment. Somewhere during the trip he died as consequence of his injuries. The U.K. military prosecutor accused the seven soldiers – a Corporal and six Privates under his command – of murder and violent disorder.

The judge found that there were serious issues with the evidence; most of the witness statements were either exaggerated or plain lies. Although it could be established that Abdullah had been assaulted by the accused’s section, it was unclear whether their use of force – which was in principle allowed, as part of their mission to bring an end to smuggling and other armed activities compromising security in the area – had been unlawful in the current case. Furthermore, no individual soldier could be identified as the person dealing the fatal blow, and no one could be individually found to have joined or encouraged an unlawful assault. Hence, all seven were acquitted of all charges.


<< first < prev   page 32 of 71   next > last >>