Search results

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Jose Cardoso, was the Deputy Commander and subsequently the Commander of the pro-autonomy militia group Kaer Metin Merah Putih (KMMP). From May until September 1999, he issued a number of orders to attack both known and suspected independence supporters. These individuals were arrested, beaten and detained for months in cramped and extremely unhygienic conditions without regular access to food or water. One victim had his eat cut off and force fed to him on orders of the Accused. Two women were raped by the Accused. Two other individuals were murdered as a result of the Accused’s orders.

Cardoso was convicted for 9 counts of crimes against humanity by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

In this landmark case, fourteen Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, requesting judicial review of their indefinite detention without charges. 

Revisiting the holding in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that US courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in the course of armed conflict and subsequently detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Rasul was found to differ from Eisentrager in the “plenary and exclusive jurisdiction” held by the US over Guantanamo; the Court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges from Guantanamo detainees under the terms of the general federal habeas statute.

Abimael Guzmán was the founder of the Shining Path, a guerrilla group in Perú. The aim of the Shining Path was to overthrow the Peruvian government. Between 1980 and 2000, the Shining Path was responsible for an extensive campaign of violence, including the killings of thousands of people.

Guzmán was arrested in 1992, and in the same year, a secret military court sentenced him to life imprisonment. This decision was found to have been based on unconstitutional laws in 2003, and resulted in the retrial of Guzmán and the other Shining Path leaders. The charges included terrorism, murder and other offences. The lower Peruvian court found Guzmán guilty of terrorism and other offences, sentencing him, and his second in command, Elena Iparraguirre, to life imprisonment. The other ten co-defendants were also found guilty, and received sentences between 24 and 35 years of imprisonment.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This decision is the first in a line of proceedings that culminated in November 2012 by which the plaintiffs, victims of the regime, sought damages for the harm they suffered. 

At the beginning of 2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.

On 21 February 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.

The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2008.