Search results

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). It does so on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach the town of Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC), on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, stating that the Quebec office of Anvil primarily focussed on investors and stakeholders. Therefore, the link with events in the DRC could not be established. Furthermore, it held that the complaint could also be heard in another country, most specifically Australia. Therefore, the Court found that authorities in Quebec did not have jurisdiction. 

On 14 February 2005, explosives equivalent to 2500 kgs of TNT were detonated in Downtown Beirut, killing former PM Rafik Hariri and 21 others and injuring 226 people.

In its judgement of 18 August 2020, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Ayyash guilty of co-perpetrating conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, committing a terrorist act by an explosive device, intentional homicide of Mr. Rafik Hariri with premeditation and by explosive materials, and attempted intentional homicide of 226 persons with premeditation by using explosive materials. The Court’s reasoning was based on the connection of Mr. Ayyash to mobile Red 741, which had been proven to have monitored Mr. Hariri’s movements and prepared for the attack.

The Trial Chamber, however, acquitted Messrs. Oneissi and Sabra for lack of sufficient evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, their complicity to the attack, and acquitted Mr. Merhi for insufficient factual evidence surrounding his actions.

Dragan Damjanović, born in Sarajevo on 23 November 1961, was an ethnic Serb citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Damjanović was a member of the Republika Srpska Army, and was accused and found guilty of crimes against humanity (murder, enforced disappearance, and sexual crimes amongst others) committed in Vogošća municipality between July 1992 and January 1993. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment to be served in fully closed prisons under strict control.

This case marks the beginning in a series of proceedings before the British courts with regard to the (existence of a) duty to investigate alleged widespread torture and abuse of Iraqis by British troops during Iraq’s occupation, lasting from 2003 until 2008. The claimant in Mousa v. UK, Ali Zaki Mousa, represents about 100 Iraqis – with the possible addition of 100 more after intervention – who were allegedly tortured or otherwise ill-treated during their detention at British military bases in Iraq, often without being charged (many of them were allegedly released after a period of time without any information on the reasons for either their detention or release). The claimants asked the High Court of Justice to order the Secretary of State for Defence to start investigations into the alleged misconduct. The Court agreed with him, finding that the current investigating bodies were too much intertwined with the army itself and did not constitute independent bodies of judicial review, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, the Secretary of State was ordered to initiate proper investigations.