730 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 59 of
146
next >
last >>
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.
Van Anraat: Public Prosecutor v. Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat
Sentence, 23 Dec 2005, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands
Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer.
The present case before the District Court of The Hague was brought by the Dutch Prosecutor against Van Anraat, a chemicals dealer who sold thiodiglycol to Saddam Hussein’s regime, which was used in the production of mustard gas. He was acquitted of the charge of complicity to genocide because it was not proven that at the time Van Anraat knew that the chemical would be used for the destruction of the Kurdish population. He was, however, convicted of complicity in war crimes and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Zemin et al.: The Prosecutor v. Jiang Zemin et al.
Order, 10 Jan 2006, National Court, 4th Section of the Criminal Division, Spain
Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.
Memorandum and Order, 16 Feb 2006, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States
In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.
On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law.
John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.
Memorandum, 2 Mar 2006, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.
After the District Court allowed the case to proceed in part, the plaintiffs presented an amended complaint, which was assessed again by the District Court. It allowed most of these claims, which were based on the laws of the District of Columbia, to proceed. US law should be applied, the Court reasoned, because Exxon Mobil was based in the United States.
<< first
< prev
page 59 of
146
next >
last >>