Search results

Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.

The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted the unlawful arrest and detention of hundreds of Jewish persons from 1942 until 1944, who were eventually deported and exterminated at Auschwitz.

Papon appealed the conviction but the Court of Cassation held that Papon had forfeited his rights to appeal when, instead of surrendering himself to the custody of the Court as he was legally obliged to do, he fled to Switzerland. Following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights condemning France for having breached Papon’s right of access to a court by holding that he had forfeited such right, Papon sought and obtained the re-examination of his appeal by the Court of Cassation, the highest judicial body in France. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Assize Court, rendering irreversible Papon’s conviction. Papon died three years later.

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. The main legal issue to be solved by the District Court was whether it had jurisdiction over this case under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows non-Americans to sue in federal Court for a violation of a small group of international norms. The District Court ruled that this case did not fall within the scope of the ATCA for several reasons. They could not be qualified as state agents carrying out illegal state actions, business activities in South Africa during the apartheid era could not be defined as a breach of the ‘law of nations’ under the ATCA and neither could aiding and abetting to an international norm violation. 

The plaintiffs, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Helene Petit, Martin Larsson, Leeshai Lemish, and Roland Odar, all practitioners of Falun Gong, were beaten, sexually assaulted and tortured by police forces in the period before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

On 7 February 2002, the plaintiffs brought a claim against Liu Qi, who was the mayor of Beijing at that time. The plaintiffs accused him of failing to supervise and discipline the police officers who offended them. In addition, they claimed that Qi also formulated a policy that authorised such offences and incited police forces to violently repress the Falun Gong religious movement.

Qi did not reply or appear after he was served with the complaint. As a result, the plaintiffs filed a request for default judgment (a judgment issued as a result of defendant’s failure to respond). On 8 December 2004, the District Court entered a default judgment against Qi upholding only the claims of Doe I, Doe II, and Petit.

In 1999, intense violence broke out in Indonesian occupied East Timor as a referendum was held in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of the country’s independence. These periods of violence were characterised by acts of murder, persecution, displacement and torture of independence supporters. Much of the violence was carried out by the Indonesian armed and police forces, as well as local militia groups.

On polling day, a schoolhouse was attacked by members of the Indonesian army who proceeded to shoot bullets into the air and stab three persons before leaving with the ballot boxes. The Accused, Domingo de Deus, was a member of the Indonesian armed forces. Although he did not directly commit the stabbing and he was himself unarmed, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted him on two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder as crimes against humanity due to his participation in a joint criminal enterprise to suppress the independence supporters. At sentencing, he was convicted to 2 years’ imprisonment, with the majority of the judges finding that his act of saving his relatives from the polling station merited a reduced sentence. 

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.