skip navigation

Search results

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

> Refine results with advanced case search

350 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 46 of 70   next > last >>

Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.

Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court, 2 Nov 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this time sitting en banc (before all judges of the court), dismissed Arar’s claims for damages on the grounds that it rests upon the Congress to decide on whether such a civil remedy can be made possible and it is not the duty of the judges to decide on whether compensation could be sought.


Perković: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Stojan Perković

Verdict, 24 Dec 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stojan Perković was born on 3 October 1944 in the village of Lađevina located in the municipality of Rogatica. Between June and December 1992, Perković was Commander in the army of the so-called Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (VRS). In that position, he committed crimes, including murder, beatings, and rape, against non-Serb civilians in the villages of Surovi, Mesici and Varosiste in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, Perković did not punish the members of his unit for participating in the commission of those crimes. On 24 December 2009, Perković was found guilty for the crimes and sentenced to 12 years in prison.


Vinuya v. Philippines: Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al.

Decision, 28 Apr 2010, Supreme Court, Philippines

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.


Delić: The Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić (AC)

Decision on the Outcome of the Proceedings (public), 29 Jun 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber, The Netherlands

On 15 September 2008, Trial Chamber I found Delić guilty of war crimes for his role in the events in the Livade and Kamenica Camps between July and August 1995. Delić appealed the decision but died before the Appeals Chamber could issue a judgment on his appeal. 

The Chamber was faced with two questions. First, whether the death of Delić will terminate the appeals proceedings, and second, whether this termination will render the Trial Chamber's initial judgment final. 

With regard to the first issue, the Chamber found that it only has jurisdiction when the persons before it are natural persons which implies that they are alive. This means that the death of the appellant will terminate the appeal. As concerns the second issue, now that no appeal judgment could be rendered in this trial because of the death of the appellant, the trial judgment remains in force.


Al-Jedda: Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al Jedda v. The Secretary of State for Defence

Judgment, 8 Jul 2010, The Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Great Britain (UK)

Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al Jedda was born in Iraq but went to the UK in 1992 where he was granted British citizenship in June 2000. In October 2004, Al Jedda was arrested after travelling to Iraq because he was suspected of being a member of a terrorist organisation being responsible for attacks in Iraq. Al Jedda was detained in a military detention centre in Basra, Iraq, by British forces until 30 December 2007. Eventually, no charges were filed against Al Jedda. On 14 December 2007, shortly before his release, Al Jedda was deprived of his British citizenship.

Al Jedda’s claim for damages for his unlawful detention in the period between May 2006 and December 2007, was refused by the Court of Appeal on 8 June 2010 on the ground that his detention had not violated any laws under the Iraqi Constitution.


<< first < prev   page 46 of 70   next > last >>