skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: canadian association against impunity caai anvil mining ltd

> Refine results with advanced case search

683 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 51 of 137   next > last >>

Paunović: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Dragoje Paunović

Verdict, 27 Oct 2006, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dragoje Paunović was born on 19 June 1954 in the town of Mojkovac in northern Montenegro. Paunović was a senior officer of a small military formation attached to the Battalion of Rogatica, a battalion part of the Bosnian Serb Army. In the period May to September 1992, attacks were carried out by military and police forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by Serbian paramilitary formations against the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) living in the municipality of Rogatica. On 15 August 1992,  Paunović used 27 Bosniaks as protection during a clash between the army of the Republika Srpska and the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosniaks were detained in the Rasadnik detention camp in Rogatica, and later driven to the town of Jacen in Rogatica where 24 of them were subsequently killed under the orders of Paunović. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Paunović guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.


Tel-Oren v. Libya: Hanoch Tel-Oren, et al., v. Libyan Arab Republic, et al.

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 Jun 1981, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack and which they considered guilty of torture.

The District Court did not assess the merits, as the Court held, most importantly, that the relevant provisions of international law did not provide the plaintiffs with the possibility to take legal action. In several parts of the opinion, the Court clearly stated its opinion that it is not up to the federal courts to judge on claims arising under international law, unless an international legal provision grants a private right to sue. A federal court should not be a substitute for an international tribunal and the judiciary should not interfere with foreign affairs and international relations, according to the Court.

Also, the Court held that too much time had passed since the attack to take the matter to court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed.  


Tel-Oren v. Libya: Hanoch Tel-Oren, et al., Appellants, v. Libyan Arab Republic, et al.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 3 Feb 1984, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack. They based their action on, most importantly, a paragraph of the US Code which allows aliens to file action against an alleged violation of the law of nations or a treaty. 

After the District Court had dismissed their case, the Court of Appeals had to assess the plaintiffs’ appeal against this Opinion. It turned out that the Appellate Panel disagreed on basically everything except on the final conclusion: the dismissal was affirmed. Judge Bork denied the existence of a right to sue altogether, stating that nor the law of nations, nor treaties provided the plaintiffs with this right. Judge Robb considered the questions to be answered in this case too political to be answered in a court. Matters regarding the international status of terrorist acts and sensitive matters of diplomacy should be left to politicians, in his opinion. 


Coe v. Australia: Isabel Coe on behalf of the Wiradjuru Tribe v. The Commonwealth of Australia and State of New South Wales

Decision, 17 Aug 1993, High Court of Australia, Australia

The present case concerns a claim presented by Isabelle Coe on behalf of the Wiradjuri Kooris. The Wiradjuri people are an Aboriginal tribe who are alleged to have continously lived on and occupied the land now known as central New South Wales, in whole or in part, according to their laws, customs, traditions and practices since at least the early 18th Century. In part, the claim alleges that the Commonwealth of Australia and subsequently the State of New South Wales acquired the land illegally through acts of unprovoked and unjustified aggression including murder, acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The High Court of Australia struck out the plaintiff’s claim on the ground (amongst others) that the High Court of Australia cannot exercise jurisdiction over acts of genocide (a) absent domestic legislation implementing the 1948 Genocide Convention and (b) where the defendant was not a party to the alleged acts.


Todorović (Stevan): The Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorović

Sentencing Judgment, 31 Jul 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber III, The Netherlands

On 17 April 1992, the Serb forces gained control over the municipality of Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Following the takeover, they launched a series of attacks aiming to remove the Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Muslim inhabitants from the area. As a result, the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims were murdered, beaten, sexually assaulted, deported and those who were unlawfully confined, were subjected to various mistreatments. During this time, Stevan Todorović acted as the Chief of Police in Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

On 19 January 2001, Todorović pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecution, and, subsequently, the Trial Chamber entered a finding of guilt on the same day. 

Trial Chamber III balanced the gravity of the crimes, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the appropriate sentence for Todorović. Trial Chamber III considered that the offences perpetrated by Todorović were of serious gravity, and the underlying cruelty of the commission was an aggravating factor. Similarly, Todorović’s position as Chief of Police was further an aggravating factor. Trial Chamber III also took the following mitigating circumstances into consideration: Todorović’s guilty plea, his cooperation with the Prosecution, and his remorse. 

Todorović was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. 


<< first < prev   page 51 of 137   next > last >>