Search results

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.  

The Rwandan government suspects the Jean-Claude Iyamuremye, a Rwandan national residing in the Netherlands, of having taken part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide as Interahamwe militia leader. He is indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 25 September 2013, Rwandan authorities issued an extradition request with the Netherlands. The accused challenged the request, arguing that war crimes were not prohibited as such in Rwandan law in 1994, and that therefore he cannot be extradited. He also alleged that Rwanda would not provide him with a fair trial; if he were to be extradited, the Netherlands would violate their obligations forthcoming from the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court dismisses both arguments. Since genocide was prohibited by both Rwandan and Dutch law in 1994, the double criminality requirement has already been fulfilled. And concerning fair trial rights, the Court found that it was obliged to apply a marginal test, since the Netherlands and Rwanda are both parties to the Genocide Convention and, thus, have to trust each other on fulfilling their respective treaty obligations. It ruled that extradition would not lead to a flagrant denial of a fair trial; hence the Court ruled the extradition request admissible.

Saša Radak was a member of a volunteer unit of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA). The War Crimes Prosecutor alleged that, in the period between 20 and 21 November 1991, together with other volunteer and as a part of a shooting platoon, Radak has treated inhumanely and executed 192 of the Croatian POWs.

Even though verdicts against Radak were entered on two occasions (2006 and 2009) and he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, the Supreme Court of Serbia overturned them both, in 2007 and 2013, respectively. This was due to the significant breaches of the criminal procedure and the verdicts being based on insufficiently verified factual evidences.

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. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, an US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgement, as it was confident that a judicial ruling in this case would not interfere with the duties and prerogatives of the executive branch.   

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 (FSIA).

By the present decision, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.