Search results

In 1998 the Kosovo Liberation Army engaged in a campaign against civilians in Dukagjin, Kosovo. The three accused, Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj were indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in these crimes.

The Trial Chamber, however, found that only Brahimaj was guilty on two counts of war crimes.

The Appeals Chamber examined the findings of the Trial Chamber and the arguments of both the Prosecution and Brahimaj. It decided to grant the first ground and partially grant the third ground of appeal of the Prosecution. For the first ground, it held that the Trial Chamber failed to ensure that potentially important evidence will be presented during the trial. Therefore, it ordered the re-trial of the three accused for certain counts. For the third ground, it ruled that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings relating to the crime of cruel treatment. Although it ruled that this crime did occur, the Appeals Chamber found Balaj not liable for it, and upheld the acquittal.

Out of the 19 grounds of appeal of Brahimaj, the Appeals Chamber only partially granted one, on the basis of errors in the Trial Chamber's findings with regard to the charges on torture.

The Al-Aulaqi case is significant as it marks in all probability the first time that an American citizen has been killed by U.S. forces outside the borders of the U.S., without any trial, indictment or due process. The case revolves around Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship who was a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and had gone into hiding in Yemen, from where he regularly published videos propagating the jihad. The U.S. Treasury Department had allegedly designated him for targeted killing. Therefore, his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, filed a complaint claiming that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA unlawfully authorised the targeted killing, and seeking an injunction prohibiting them from intentionally killing his son, except in case he did present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and when there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralise the threat. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights intervened with a memorandum supporting Al-Aulaqi senior’s complaint.

The Columbia District Court found that plaintiff Al-Aulaqi, the father, had neither legal standing in court for his claims, nor that was the claim justiciable under the Alien Tort Statute. And if this was not enough, the Court also ruled that the political question doctrine barred it from adjudicating the case. On 7 December 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s complaint was dismissed on those grounds, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on 30 September 2011.

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.

Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki jointly brought an action against the government of Japan for the damages they and members of their families suffered as a result of the atomic bombings by the United States in August 1945.

Among other things, it was alleged that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an unlawful act and that Japan's waiver of claims for damages under domestic and international law against the US gave rise to an obligation for the government of Japan itself to pay damages.

The Court held that the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were violations of the laws and customs of war, because the attacks did not distinguish between military and civilian targets and inflicted unnecessary suffering. The Court ruled that the bombings, as an indiscriminate bombardment on undefended cities were unlawful acts.

With regard to the claim of the plaintiffs for damages, the Court ruled that individuals did not have rights under international law unless specifically provided for. Since this was not the case, the Court held that individuals could not claim damages directly under international law. The claim was dismissed by the Court on this ground.

What happens if a country suspects a national of another country of being involved in the murder of one of its officials? In many cases, the former country will request an extradition of the suspect. But what happens if the latter country refuses?

In this case, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, having lost one of its own at the hands of a Mexican drug cartel, took matters in its own hands and forcibly abducted one of the suspects, Humberto Alvarez—Machain. In the United States, he was indicted for participation in kidnapping and murder. The District Court established that the forcible abduction stood in the way of Alvarez-Machain’s trial in the United States. The Court of Appeals, relying on previous case law, agreed. It established that forcible abduction violated the extradition treaty between the US and Mexico. According to the Court of Appeals, this conclusion was substantiated by official Mexican protests against the abduction.