Search results

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and refining oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.

The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages. In 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the charges for crimes against humanity of torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, and dismissed the charges against the defendants for extrajudicial killing and violations of the right to life, security and association. On appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide jurisdiction over claims for violations of international law committed by corporations and not individual persons. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants could not continue and all charges were dismissed.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appeals Court's decision, but based it on the ground that Alien Tort Statute has no extraterritorial application and thus does not apply to events that happened outside the United States.

Madelaine Bukumba, a woman originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was previously employed by the Comité de Securité de l'État (CSE). Her job was to listen incognito to the conversations of individuals in public places and to report on their opinions to the CSE as well as on media coverage of the government. 

After being shown on television speaking against the government’s use of child soldiers, Bukumba was put in prison for 15 days. Following her release, she attempted to quit her job but was threatened to be killed if she would quit. Thereafter, Bukumba fled to Kenya and eventually to Canada together with her minor daughter.

Bukumba claimed protection under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in order not to be returned to the DRC. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada held that she did not qualify for protection because she had been an accomplice to serious crimes committed by the government because she was a former governmental employee. In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Board held that there was no risk to her or her daughter’s life if returned to the DRC.

On 1 December 2003, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR sentenced Kajelijeli to two concurrent life terms for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and to an additional 15 years imprisonment for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. All three sentences were to run concurrently.

The Appeals Chamber overthrew Kajelijeli's cumulative convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity under Counts 2 and 6 insofar as they were based upon a finding of command responsibility. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber was required to take its finding on Kajelijeli’s superior position (Article 6(3)) into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had done so. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.

However, the Appeals Chamber ruled that in view of the serious violations of his fundamental rights during his arrest and detention in Benin and at the UN detention facility from 5 June 1998 to 6 April 1999, the two life sentences and the 15 year sentences which were to run concurrently imposed by the Trial Chamber should be converted into a single sentence of imprisonment for 45 years. The Appeals Chamber ordered that Kajelijeli be given credit for time already served in detention.

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.