skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: targeted killings public committee government israel

> Refine results with advanced case search

517 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 50 of 104   next > last >>

El Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 8 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.

On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals ordered that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court).

On 8 June 2010, the Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of El-Shifa’s claims on the grounds that the question brought before the Court remained a political question despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to characterize the case differently. Accordingly, the claims could not be heard by the court.


Munyakazi: The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi

Judgement and Sentence, 5 Jul 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber I), Tanzania

During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Yussuf Munyakazi was a farmer in Bugarama commune (community), Cyangugu prefecture. Relying on his alleged acts in Cyangugu prefecture, the Prosecution charged Munyakazi with three counts, namely, genocide, or, in the alternative, complicity in genocide, and extermination as a crime against humanity.

The Trial Chamber of the ICTR delivered its judgment on 30 June 2010. It found that Munyakazi had been a leader in the incidents that had taken place at Shangi parish on 29 April 1994 and Mibilizi parish on 30 April 1994 and that he was responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Tutsi civilians. As a result, the Chamber convicted him for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.  


Al-Quraishi et al. v. Nakhla et al.: Wissam Abdullateff Sa’eed Al-Quraishi, et al., Plaintiffs v. Adel Nakhla, et al., Defendants

Opinion, 29 Jul 2010, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, United States

In March 2003, a military coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coalition forces remained in Iraq as an occupying force, engaging in the process of rebuilding the country. During the occupation, the US military contracted with several private military contractors for a wide array of services the US military simply had no manpower for, due to the implications of the occupation and rebuilding process. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they were hired to supervise detention centres or to provide security services and ended up torturing or unlawfully killing civilians. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc., and the current case Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Services Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3 Services, Inc., a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a U.S. citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 Services at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 Services and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also alleged that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 Services and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 Services and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint.

The Court disagreed with defendants. On 29 June 2010, it rejected the motions to dismiss, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.


Ntawukulilyayo: The Prosecutor v. Dominique Ntawukulilyayo

Judgement and Sentence, 3 Aug 2010, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was the sub-prefect of Gisaraga sub-prefecture in Butare prefecture in 1994. On 20 April 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and their families escaped attacks and sought refuge at Gisaraga market in Ndora commune. Some of these people were prevented from leaving the market that evening and the following morning by law enforcement personnel and were forced to return to Gisaraga market. From 21 April through 23 April many of the Tutsi refugees left Gisaraga market for Kabuye hill. There, an extensive assault on the refugees was carried out by armed civilians, police and military personnel resulting in the death or serious injury of hundreds, and possibly thousands of men, women, children and the elderly.

On 23 April 1994 the Accused had promised the Tutsi refugees that they would be protected at Kabuye hill, prompting them to go there. Yet, later that day, he transported soldiers to Kabuye hill to participate in the attack against them. For these reasons, Ntawukulilyayo was found guilty of genocide (Count I) and not guilty of complicity (Count II) and incitement (Count III) charges. He was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. 


Khadr: United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr

Verdict, 31 Oct 2010, Military Commission, United States

Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was 15 years old when he was captured and seriously injured in a firefight in Afghanistan on 27 July 2002. The US accused Khadr of throwing a grenade that killed US Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer and injured two others. He was charged with murder and attempted murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying.

On 25 October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying, and was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment.

In spite of Khadr's young age at the time of his capture, the United States imprisoned him together with adults.

Khadr was the first person since World War II to be prosecuted in a military commission for war crimes committed while still a minor. His conviction and sentence were widely denounced by civil rights groups and various newspaper editorials. He has been frequently referred to as a child soldier.


<< first < prev   page 50 of 104   next > last >>