Search results

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.

Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, where the Supreme Court found that certain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) are unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals raised the question of whether it still has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the detainees’ petitions. The Court of Appeal found that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, since the provisions of the DTA relating to the elimination of the habeas corpus rights (the right to challenge the legality of one’s detention) have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the detainees’ petition was dismissed.

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

In March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries attempted to exclude from its appeal the political question doctrine, however, the Court of Appeals found that the other raised claims were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the political  question doctrine and therefore, must be considered together. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s earlier finding that the raised issues are political questions and hence, non-justiciable.

The case was filed by 22 injured Iraqi nationals and the families of eight individuals who died in the Nisoor Square shooting in Bagdad on 16 September 2007. The complaint was brought against the private security contractor Blackwater (now known as “Academic LLC”) and its founder Erik Prince.

On 1 January 2010, the Iraqi nationals agreed to sign a settlement agreement with Blackwater and Erik Prince, and to withdraw their complaint. The details of the agreement were not made available to the public.

The case arose as a result of three brutal firearm attacks upon unarmed protesters and innocent citizens in Nigeria between May 1998 and January 1999. The plaintiffs allege that in each instance, the Chevron Corporation acted in concert with the Nigerian military and police to plan, order and execute the attacks including through the participation of Chevron security personnel and equipment, the payment of funds to the military and police, and the purchase of equipment and materials including ammunition. The plaintiffs were either summarily executed, seriously injured, burned in a fire set during the attack or tortured by the military and police thereafter. Such acts were intended to force the plaintiffs to cease their protests against Chevron’s damage to the lands and the plaintiffs’ livelihood and discourage any further behaviour.

The first case of its kind to be decided by a jury trial, Bowoto v. Chevron Corporation was decided in favour of Chevron, clearing them of all liability. The present decision is an appeal by the plaintiffs, which was ultimately unsuccessful as the Court of Appeals upheld the judgement of the District Court. 

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the success of the Rwandan Patriotic Front in gaining control of the country, members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and the Interahamwe militia who were widely considered to be responsible for the genocide, fled to the Kivu provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These exiled forces organised themselves into political and military groups designed to oppose the new Rwandan government.

One of these groups was the Forces Démocratiques pour la Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR) led by Ignace Murwanashyaka. The FDLR, composed of a military and a political wing, was coordinated by its Steering Committee of which the Suspect, Callixte Mbarushimana, was a member. The Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleges that Mbarushimana was responsible for the FDLR’s perpetration of attacks against the civilian populations in the Kivu provinces throughout 2009. The objective of these attacks, which included murder, rape, torture, mutilation and pillage, was to create a humanitarian catastrophe that would place pressure on the international community and draw attention to the FDLR’s political demands.

Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC declined to confirm the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Mbarushimana thereby refusing to allow the case to continue to trial on the grounds that the Prosecution had not proved a number of key elements including the existence of a policy to attack the civilian population, and the existence of a group of persons acting with the common purpose of perpetrating crimes. Mbarushimana was subsequently released from the custody of the ICC and returned to France where he had been living since fleeing Rwanda.