725 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 58 of
145
next >
last >>
Corrie v. Caterpillar: Cynthia Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar Inc.
Order granting defendant Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss , 22 Nov 2005, United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma, United States
In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.
The District Court dismissed the claim, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.
Habré: Hissène Habré
Opinion of the Court of Appeal of Dakar on the Extradition Request for Hissène Habré, 25 Nov 2005, Court of Appeal of Dakar, Senegal
Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.
Residing in exile in Senegal, victims of Habré’s regime instituted proceedings against him in Belgium on the basis of Belgium’s universal jurisdiction law. In order to try Habré, Belgium requested Senegal to extradite him. By the present decision, the Court of Appeal of Dakar held that it was incompetent to grant the request as Habré enjoys immunity from jurisdiction by virtue of his position as the former Head of State of the Republic of Chad. This decision is the precursor to a line of litigation that will culminate in the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding Senegal’s obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré.
El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company et al. v. United States of America
Memorandum Opinion, 29 Nov 2005, United States District Court for the 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-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant 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 failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. Furthermore, the case presented 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). This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.
A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2): A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (2004); A and other (Appellants) (FC) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Conjoined Appeals)
Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, 8 Dec 2005, House of Lords, Great Britain (UK)
Ten men were certified by the Secretary of State as suspected international terrorists and were detained in the Belmarsh prison in London. The certification was made on the basis of information obtained by torture (infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person in order to obtain information). The men appealed their certification and claimed that the tainted information should not have been admitted. The House of Lords held that such information, indeed, should not have been admitted and allowed the appeals.
Simba: The Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba
Judgement and Sentence, 13 Dec 2005, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber I), Tanzania
In April 1994, in the days following the death of President Habyarimana, thousands of Tutsi civilians in Gikongoro prefecture in southern Rwanda fled their homes following attacks by Hutu militiamen. They sought sanctuary at places such as Kibeho Parish, Cyanika Parish, Murambi Technical School and Kaduha Parish. Hutu militiamen assisted by local officials and gendarmes launched attacks against them resulting in the death of a large number of Tutsi civilians.
The Accused, Aloys Simba, was a retired lieutenant colonel and former member of parliament. The Prosecution contended that Simba was one of the principal architects of these massacres, and therefore charged him with genocide (Count 1), complicity in genocide (Count 2), and extermination (Count 3) and murder (Count 3) as crimes against humanity. At the close of the trial, the Prosecution withdrew the charges of complicity in genocide and of murder as a crime against humanity.
On 13 December 2005, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found Simba guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his participation in the aforementioned massacres and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.
<< first
< prev
page 58 of
145
next >
last >>