Search results

The Filártiga family, Dolly and Dr. Joel Filártiga, Paraguay nationals, claim that on 29 March 1976, Dr. Filártiga’s seventeen-year-old son Joelito Filártiga was kidnapped and tortured to death by the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at that time, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala (Peña). They claim that Joelito was maltreated because his father was a longstanding opponent of the government of Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner who ruled over the country since 1954.

In 1978, Joelito’s sister Dolly Filártiga and (separately) Américo Peña came to the United States. Dolly applied for political asylum, while Peña stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of Peña's presence in the United States and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who arrested and ordered the deportation of Peña for staying well past the expiration of his visa.

Immediately after, on 6 April 1979, the Filártiga family filed a complaint before US courts alleging that Peña had wrongfully caused Joelito's death by torture and seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $ 10,000,000. In support of federal jurisdiction, the Filártiga family relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute of 1789. They also sought to enjoin Peña’s deportation to ensure his availability for testimony at trial. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was absent and for forum non conveniens, but on appeal the Filártiga family succeeded: the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, ruled that even though the Filártiga family did not consist of US nationals and that the crime was committed outside the US, the family was allowed to bring a claim before US courts. It held that torture was a violation of the laws of nations and that federal jurisdiction was provided.

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Trial Chamber II held that the elements required for the establishment of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions have not been met. Particularly, the Muslim victims were not in the hands of the party to the conflict of which they were not nationals, since the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were not an organ or agent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, the victims could not be seen as “protected persons” within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; as such, Trial Chamber II acquitted Tadić of all charges of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (persecutions and inhumane acts) and of violations of the laws or customs of war (cruel treatment). 

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA.

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA. On appeal, the present decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. 

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan. Having been unsuccessful before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. By its decision of 28 June 2005, the Court of Appeals once again dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine as they would require the Courts to interpret treaties concluded between foreign States.