skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: presbyterian church sudan talisman energy republic sudan talisman

> Refine results with advanced case search

195 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 34 of 39   next > last >>

Case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden

Judgment, 27 Oct 2011, European Court of Human Rights, France

Sylvère Ahorugeze was a Rwandan national and former director of the Rwandan Civil Aviation Authority and Kigali international airport. An international arrest warrant was issued against him on the basis of his alleged participation in the crime of genocide (intentional destruction of a national, racial, ethnical or religious group or part of it) and crimes against humanity (crimes committed on large scale including but not limited to murder, rape, torture) committed in Rwanda in 1994. On 16 July 2008, Ahorugeze was arrested in Sweden and on 7 July 2009, the Swedish government decided that he could be extradited to Rwanda. 

Subsequently, Ahorugeze filed an application at the ECtHR.  He claimed that his health was poor, and that his Hutu ethnic background, the prison conditions in Rwanda, and a lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary were factors that should prevent his extradition to Rwanda. The Court dismissed his case and held that there were no reasons to believe that Ahorugeze would be subjected to inhumane or unfair treatment in Rwanda and that he would not receive a fair trial.


CAAI v. Anvil Mining: Canadian Association Against Impunity (CAAI) v Anvil Mining Ltd.

Judgment, 24 Jan 2012, Québec Court of Appeal, Canada

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 


Duch: The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch

Judgement, 3 Feb 2012, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Cambodia

In the course of the armed conflict between the Democratic Kampuchea (now, Cambodia) and Vietnam from 1975 until 1979, the ruling Khmer Rouge regime perpetrated a number of abuses in their desire to establish a revolutionary State. Their policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies consisted of physical and psychological destruction involving torture and execution. This policy was implemented at S21, an interrogation centre under the leadership of Duch.

Duch was convicted by the Trial Chamber of the ECCC in its first ever judgement and awarded a sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 5 years for having been unlawfully detained by the Cambodian Military Court prior to being transferred to the ECCC. On appeal, the Supreme Court Chamber overturned this sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment and awarded no reduction in sentence. It argued that such a hefty sentence was warranted by the shocking and heinous nature of the crimes, the large number of victims (over 12000), Duch’s central leadership role and his enthusiasm for the crimes. 


Krasniqi et al.: The Prosecutor v. Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi, Fatmir Limaj and Naser Shala

Judgment, 2 May 2012, District Court of Pristina, Kosovo

In early 1998, escalating ethnic tensions and violence led to the break out of an armed conflict in Kosovo between Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Serbian and Albanian civilians were perceived as non-cooperative by the KLA and were subsequently targeted for intimidation, imprisonment, violence and murder. A number of Serbian military prisoners as well as Albanian civilian prisoners were detained at the Klecka detention centre by the KLA in inhumane conditions, exposed to cold, without adequate sanitation or proper nutrition. Prisoners were frequently beaten and a number amongst them were executed and their bodies buried in mass graves nearby. 

Fatmir Limaj, Naser Krasniqi, Nexhmi Krasniqi and Naser Shala were all KLA members; Limaj was the commander of the 121st Brigade. They were indicted by the Special Prosecutor for war crimes and stood trial before the District Court of Pristina, operating under European Union supervision in Kosovo. All Accused were acquitted by the District Court.

On appeal however, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of all accused and held that key evidence from Limaj’s deputy who had died in Germany the previous year would be admissible in the new trial.


Hategekimana: Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 8 May 2012, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Ildephonse Hategekimana was born in Mugina Commne, Gitarama Prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, during the events in Rwanda, he held the rank of lieutenant in the Rwandan army. As determined by Trial Chamber II of the Tribunal, during the relevant period covered by the indictment, Hategekimana was the commander of the Ngoma Military Camp in Butare Prefecture.

On 7 September 2007, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal requested the transfer of Hategekimana’s case for trial before Rwandan courts. On 19 June 2008 the Chamber rejected the request due to fears that the Accused would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Therefore, the case was tried before Trial Chamber II of the ICTR. On 16 March 2009, Hategekimana was found guilty by the Trial Chamber of genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and rape as a crime against humanity for his role in ordering the killing of Tutsi refugees at the Ngoma church. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hategekimana appealed the Trial judgment on seven grounds, challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of Appeal and affirmed Hategekimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. 


<< first < prev   page 34 of 39   next > last >>