Search results

Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki jointly brought an action against the government of Japan for the damages they and members of their families suffered as a result of the atomic bombings by the United States in August 1945.

Among other things, it was alleged that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an unlawful act and that Japan's waiver of claims for damages under domestic and international law against the US gave rise to an obligation for the government of Japan itself to pay damages.

The Court held that the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were violations of the laws and customs of war, because the attacks did not distinguish between military and civilian targets and inflicted unnecessary suffering. The Court ruled that the bombings, as an indiscriminate bombardment on undefended cities were unlawful acts.

With regard to the claim of the plaintiffs for damages, the Court ruled that individuals did not have rights under international law unless specifically provided for. Since this was not the case, the Court held that individuals could not claim damages directly under international law. The claim was dismissed by the Court on this ground.

Paul Touvier was a collaborator in Vichy France. He was arrested after World War II on charges of treason and collaborating with the enemy and sentenced to death but escaped in 1947 and escaped prosecution for the next 43 years. The statute of limitations for these sentences elapsed in March 1967. However, time limitations for crimes against humanity were abolished in France in 1964, and Touvier was arrested on 24 May 1989 and charged with complicity in crimes against humanity. He was accused of crimes against humanity, committed while carrying out his function as local leader of the Second Service of the Militia in Lyon: involvement in raids, the arrest, torture and deportation of resistance members and the execution of seven Jews in Rillieux on 28 and 29 June 1944.

However, the Court of Appeal in Paris found that, apart from the crimes committed in Rillieux, there was not enough evidence to indict Touvier and declared the charges inadmissible. The Court also ruled that the remaining charge, the crimes committed in Rillieux, could not be classified as crimes against humanity, thus rendering the charge invalid as the period of prescription period had elapsed.

The Cour de Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, but only with regards to the murders in Rillieux. The Cour de Cassation ruled that the events in Rillieux in fact constituted crimes against humanity.  

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a widespread campaign against the civilian population in East Timor in order to repress pro-independence supporters.

The present case was the first before an international or hybrid international/domestic tribunal like the Special Panels for Serious Crimes to indict a minor for their involvement in the perpetration of international crimes. The Accused, X, was 14 years old in 1999 when, as a member of the Sakunar militia group, he killed by machete three young men who had been apprehended by the militia as part of a larger group. The Prosecution had initially charged the Accused with extermination as a crime against humanity, but later amended to murder in violation of the Indonesian Penal Code. The Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Having already served 11 months 21 days in ore-trial detention, the Court ordered the remainder of the sentence to be suspended on the condition that the Accused does not commit any crimes for a period of one year. At sentencing, the youth of the Accused was a decisive mitigating factor as the Panel considered that he was used merely as a tool by those truly responsible.

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.