Search results

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

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. 

During the armed conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Krešo Lučić was a commander of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) Military Police in Kreševo, and participated in the imprisonment and torture of Bosniak civilians in 1993. The HVO led widespread and systematic attacks on the Bosniak civilian population. Lučić allegedly ordered the imprisonment of these civilians in the premises of the Ivo Lola Ribar Elementary School and in the Šunje warehouse in Kreševo and also physically abused and tortured Bosniaks who were imprisoned. 

He was charged with illegal detention, torture and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. For a crime to be considered a crime against humanity, it is necessary that it is proven these crimes were part of widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population. The Court considered this proven since this had already been decided in other cases before the ICTY. The Court found him guilty on three counts and acquitted him from abusing one person.  He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

In this case, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina acquitted the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović of the charges entered against them. As active members of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and military officers in the municipality of Ključ, they were suspected of having participated in a joint criminal enterprise with the main purpose being the deportation of the non-Serb civilian population living in Ključ.

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the case reached the Navy-Marines Corps of Criminal Appeals, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCCA confirmed the previous ruling by the Trial Judiciary, stating that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of ‘unlawful command influence’. According to the NMCCA, the government had only attempted to disprove that Ewers directly influenced key figures in the circle of the prosecutor, while not addressing whether the prosecution’s legal advisors might have been influenced by Ewers.