skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: hutchins iii lawrence g hamdania

> Refine results with advanced case search

268 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 46 of 54   next > last >>

Sarei v. Rio Tinto: Alexis Holyweek Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto PLC and Rio Tinto Limited

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 25 Oct 2011, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’.

With the case back at the Court of Appeals, the question to be determined was the scope of the jurisdiction of the ATCA with regard to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and racial discrimination. The Court held that genocide and war crimes fall within the scope of the ATCA. These norms, according to the Court, are specific, universal and obligatory accepted and extend to corporations. However, the crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and the racial discrimination claims are not and, therefore, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims of genocide and war crimes.


Bagosora & Nsengiyumva: Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 14 Dec 2011, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Anatole Nsengiyumva served as Head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Army General Staff and Commander of the Gisenyi Operational Sector from June 1993 to July 1994. He was initially found guilty by Trial Chamber I of the ICTR on 18 December 2008 of genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts), and violence to life for ordering the killings in Gisenyi town on 7 April, Mudende University, Nyundo Parish and aiding and abetting the killings in Bisesero. The Chamber later reversed some of these convictions and it set aside his sentence to life imprisonment imposing on him a sentence of 15 years imprisonment instead.

Théoneste Bagosora was appointed directeur de cabinet for the Ministry of Defence in June 1992, where he served until July 1994. The Trial Chamber I convicted him for genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, persecution, other inhumane acts, and rapes), and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life and outrages upon personal dignity), for his participation in the events in Rwanda in 1994. The Appeals Chamber reversed some of these convictions, setting aside his sentence to life imprisonment and sentencing him to 35 years of imprisonment instead.


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. 


Bout: United States of America v. Viktor Bout

Judgment, 5 Feb 2012, District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and discussed with him a multimillion-dollar weapons transaction supposedly in order to aid the FARC in its fight against the Colombian government and the United States. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand.

The US charged him with conspiracy to kill US nationals and officials and with conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organisation (the FARC). Initially, Bout managed to have the Thai Criminal Court prohibit his extradition due to it being politically motivated. However, in appeals the decision was overturned and Bout was extradited to the US in 2010. A US jury found him guilty on all charges in 2011 and on 5 April 2012, he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment - the minimum sentence, since the judge had found "no reason to believe Bout would ever have committed the charged 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.


<< first < prev   page 46 of 54   next > last >>