Search results

The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić case before the ICTY concerned events which occurred from October 1991 to November 1995 in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. These conflicts have been estimated to be the cause of a death toll of approximately 100,000 people, and to over 2,000,000 people being displaced.The victims in this case were the ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats residing in the targeted municipalities. The crimes in question (such as murder) were committed by Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs, as per orders issued by government leaders, one of whom was Mr. Karadžić. 

Mr. Karadžić was the President of the Republika Srpska (RS) and Supreme Commander of the RS armed forces during the conflicts. In his leadership position, Mr. Karadžić, together with other leaders, aimed to create an ethnically pure Bosnian Serb State by territorially dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Karadžić’s leadership position leveraged his power in ordering the RS armed forces and facilitating the commission of crimes against humanity, genocide, and violations of rules and customs of war. Therefore, Mr. Karadžić was indicted by the ICTY of 11 counts of crimes, including crimes against humanity, violations of rules and customs of war, and genocide. On 24 March 2016, Mr. Karadžić was found guilty of most of the counts and acquitted of one genocide count. As a result, Mr. Karadžić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.

On 14 February 2005, explosives equivalent to 2500 kgs of TNT were detonated in Downtown Beirut, killing former PM Rafik Hariri and 21 others and injuring 226 people.

In its judgement of 18 August 2020, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Ayyash guilty of co-perpetrating conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, committing a terrorist act by an explosive device, intentional homicide of Mr. Rafik Hariri with premeditation and by explosive materials, and attempted intentional homicide of 226 persons with premeditation by using explosive materials. The Court’s reasoning was based on the connection of Mr. Ayyash to mobile Red 741, which had been proven to have monitored Mr. Hariri’s movements and prepared for the attack.

The Trial Chamber, however, acquitted Messrs. Oneissi and Sabra for lack of sufficient evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, their complicity to the attack, and acquitted Mr. Merhi for insufficient factual evidence surrounding his actions.

Mr. Eyad Al-Gharib is a Syrian citizen who was a member of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate until 2012. Due to his conduct during the Arab Spring protests in Syria, he was found guilty by a German court of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in the form of torture and deprivation of liberty and sentences to 4.5 years of imprisonment. 

The offences in question occurred in Branch 251 and Section 40, which are part of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. In September or October 2011, a demonstration took place in the town of Douma. Members of Branch 251 and Section 40, including Mr. Al-Gharib, were deployed to deal with the demonstration. The officers shot at the demonstrators, and when the demonstrators tried to flee, the security forces, among them Mr. Al-Gharib, chased and arrested a large number of them and forced them into waiting buses. Thirty demonstrators were then taken to Branch 251, escorted by Mr. Al-Gharib. They were beaten on the busses and upon their arrival. They were then held in Branch 251 for at least several days. The conditions of detention were typical for the Branch: severely overcrowded underground detention rooms, partly without daylight; scarce food; terrible hygienic conditions; no information of the reason of detention or its duration; and, no information for the relatives of the detainees regarding their fate. The vast majority of the detainees were subjected to systematic physical violence during their detention and interrogation. 

This judgment was the first court decision against a former agent of the Syrian government regarding the government-led crimes against humanity in Syria. This in turn permitted the Court to shed light on the repressive practices of the Syrian State apparatus.

On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty-one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.

The twenty-one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the District Court to hold that any individual is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, an inherent common law right, where they have been deprived of their liberty by an act of the United States Government and their detention is in violation of the United States Constitution. 

Ms. Feres brought a claim for compensation for the death of her husband, who was a member of the armed forces. Her husband died in a fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, which was a military post of the US. Feres claimed that the US was responsible for the death because it was known or should have been known that the barracks were unsafe.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The dismissal was confirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Feres appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the dismissal because the claim was based on law, the Federal Tort Claims Act, which did not provide for compensation in case of injuries suffered by military personnel in the course of activity incident to service.