Search results

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 grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Residing in exile in Senegal, he was unsuccessfully brought before the Senegalese courts in 2000-2001 at which time the Supreme Court of Senegal confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the acts allegedly committed by Habré were not criminalised under domestic law. In response to an African Union mandate to prosecute Habré, Senegal amended its legislation to provide for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and acts of torture committed by foreign nationals outside of Senegalese territory.

Habré brought a complaint against Senegal before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa alleging that the new legislation breached his human rights, including the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law. The Court held, in a decision that has been criticised for lack of legal basis, that Senegal would violate the principle of non-retroactivity if its tried Habré in its domestic courts. Instead, international custom mandates that Senegal establish a special tribunal to try and prosecute Habté. 

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.

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas. In the Treblinka camp in Poland, a Ukrainian guard nicknamed “Ivan the Terrible” was responsible for the operation of the motor to produce the gas and for various abuses perpetrated against the individuals in those camps including severe beatings with bayonets, pipes, whips and swords.

John Demjanjuk was a Ukrainian national who had retired in the United States from his career as a car-worker. He was extradited by the United States to stand trial in Israel when evidence came to light identifying him as Ivan the Terrible. He was convicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against persecuted persons and sentenced to death. On appeal, however, new evidence was introduced that cast a doubt on the identity of Ivan the Terrible. The Supreme Court of Israel found that there was reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible and could not therefore be convicted of the crimes with which he was charged at Treblinka. However, the Supreme Court did state that the evidence did identify Demjanjuk as a member of the SS and a guard at other concentration camps but, since he was not charged with crimes committed in camps other than Treblinka, he had to be acquitted. 

The Nazis' widespread extermination of the Jewish population during World War II resulted in the loss of millions of lives. It was carried out primarily in concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of individuals were lead to the “showers” - gas chambers where they would be suffocated through breathing in gas.

John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian national and a retired auto-worker residing in the United States, was extradited to Israel to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by him during his time as a guard at the concentration camp Treblinka, Poland. He was convicted by the District Court of Jerusalem and then acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel on the grounds of mistaken identity. The Court found that although the evidence established that Demjanjuk was a Wachtman – an individual trained at a Russian camp to assist the Germans - there was a reasonable doubt that he was Ivan the Terrible, the notorious guard at Treblinka responsible for a number of crimes.

The present decision is a petition by 10 civil parties for new trial proceedings to be brought against Demjanjuk on the basis of his involvement not with the Treblinka camp, but with the camp at Sobibor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding that new proceedings might violate the rule on double jeopardy, which prohibits individuals being judged twice for the same conduct.