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.

After the District Court allowed the case to proceed in part, the plaintiffs presented an amended complaint, which was assessed again by the District Court. It allowed most of these claims, which were based on the laws of the District of Columbia, to proceed. Exxon appealed to this ruling, but the Court of Appeals stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court also refused to compel the District Court to dismiss the case.

Fofana and Kondewa were leaders in the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), an armed group that was participating in the conflict in Sierra Leone in order to restore the democratically elected government of President Kabbah who had been ousted by a coup of the Revolutionary United Forces (RUF) and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). The Accused were charged with eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed throughout the Southern and Eastern provinces of Sierra Leone including murder, cruel treatment (mutilation, hacking of limbs), terrorising the civilian population, burning and looting civilian property, using child soldiers in the hostilities and collective punishments.

Trial Chamber I found that the Accused were not guilty of crimes against humanity as it could not be proven that the attacks were directed primarily against the civilian population. The Accused were found guilty of aiding and abetting CDF forces in their commission of the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishments; Kondewa was additionally guilty of enlisting child soldiers. The Trial Chamber did not consider that they were guilty either for participating in a common plan to defeat the RUF/AFRC forces or as superiors responsible for the acts committed by their CDF subordinates.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Between April 2012 and January 2013, the armed Islamist groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) took control of Timbuktu, Mali. The current case concerns the acts committed by Mr. Al Hassan who was the chief of the Islamic Police and was involved in the Islamic Court’s work. At the time that Mr. Al Hassan was the Chief of the Islamic Police, he enforced discriminatory laws and committed religious persecution, among other crimes. Through his role in the Islamic Court, Mr. Al Hassan took part in the transfer of accused persons, and implemented the judgments and sentences handed down by the Islamic Court. 

On 26 June 2024, the ICC convicted Mr. Al Hassan of several of the charges brought against him of war crimes and crimes against humanity. During the sentencing judgement, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances of the minor actions taken by Mr. Al Hassan to assist the civilian population in 2012-2013 and his cooperation with the Prosecution at the investigation stage. Mr. Al Hassan was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment on 20 November 2024. The time which Mr. Al Hassan had spent in detention from 28 March 2018 to 20 November 2024, was deducted from his sentence. As such, Mr. Al Hassan will be serving his sentence for committing the war crimes of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, sentencing without due process, and mutilation, as well as the crimes against humanity of torture, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

The Ad Hoc Tribunal found the defendant guilty of grave human rights violations in the form of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. Adam Damiri was the most senior and last of 18 military men and civilians to be brought before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal, which has sentenced only six of the 18, none of whom served any time in prison as part of their sentences. Damiri’s verdict effectively brought the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal to a close.

The judgement was deemed rather controversial by many human rights organizations. Firstly, because of what was considered a lenient judgment entered against the defendant, and secondly, the subsequent overturning of the judgment and the release of the defendant one year later. Human Rights Watch repeatedly requested that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commission a report by a group of experts to review the work of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR) and that of the Ad Hoc Tribunal regarding the situation in East Timor in 1999.

The rulings of the Ad Hoc Tribunal were also deemed as sign that there was a lack of political will in Indonesia to holds its highest military servicemen accountable for their actions under international humanitarian law. Indonesia has also been heavily criticised for allowing a convicted human rights abuser - though this judgment was later overturned - to be involved in yet another conflict, after Damiri was re-assigned to another province of Indonesia in order to fight another secessionist movement.