Search results

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. 

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. Exxon appealed to this ruling, but the Court of Appeals stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court also refused to compel the District Court to dismiss the case.

Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official person. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.

The Second Instance Court upheld the appeals of the accused in part, modifying the sentences imposed. The reason for this modification was the errors made by the First Instance Court in weighting and balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the taking into consideration factors that pertained to the substantial analysis of the offence (and therefore should not have been considered in the sentencing phase). Accordingly, the Appellate Panel modified this judgement, sentencing Bektaševic to 8 years 4 months, Cesur to 6 years 6 months, Ikanović to 4 years and Hasanović to 6 months.

During the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the Serb Army overran a Bosniak settlement on 2 June 1992, two brothers took part in beating a group of approximately 20 to 30 Bosniak men. The Court convicted them for war crimes against civilians. As some of the victims were injured, and all of them had surrendered, when the brother started their onslaught, they had attained the status of civilian under international humanitarian law. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to establish that the brothers had intentionally targeted Bosniaks, in the context of the armed conflict, and that they had intentionally inflicted severe pain on them. Zoran Damjanović was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Goran Damjanović was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment, as he was also convicted for illegal manufacturing and trade of weapons or explosive materials.   

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.