Search results

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. 

The pronouncement of this judgment constituted one of the fastest completions of a trial of this level in the history of the Tribunal. Nizeyimana, the Accused, known as the ‘Butcher of Butare’, went on trial in January 2011. In 54 trial days, the parties presented evidence from 84 witnesses. During the proceedings almost 130 decisions were issued. The judgment was rendered just over six months from the parties’ closing submissions.

The Accused is a former captain at the Butare military academy called the École des Sous-Officiers (ESO). The Prosecution charged him with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for violence perpetrated in Butare prefecture, and, for the most part, in Butare town for mobilising ESO soldiers and others to rape and kill Tutsis, as well as other civilians.

Nizeyimana was found guilty of genocide, extermination and murder as crimes against humanity and murder as war crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, Ziyad Yaghi, and Hysen Sherifi are three Americans charged with conspiring to engage in various terrorist activities. The district court convicted them of various counts of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism abroad. Sherifi was also convicted of conspiring to kill members of the uniformed services within the United States.

The defendants had performed various overt acts in furtherance of a terrorist conspiracy, including travelling to the Middle East, participating in weapons trainings and creating a weapons arsenal, raising money for violent jihadist efforts, and posting about their extremist beliefs on social media.

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appellants challenged their convictions on constitutional and evidentiary grounds. They first argued that the convictions were based on constitutionally protected speech (First Amendment). They also made various evidentiary challenges, including a challenge to the admissibility of lay and expert witness testimony, as well as social media videos and videos collected from defendant’s cell phone demonstrating weapon training. Finally, they challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction.

The Court dismissed all of the appellant’s challenges and upheld the district court’s conviction on all of the charges.

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 failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

In March 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment, in which it sought to the reinstate their defamation and law of nations claims. The District Court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiffs did not adduce any new evidence or arguments to support that an error of law was made during the earlier decision of November 2005.

Following the coup by members of the Revolutionary United Forces in Sierra Leone, the democratically elected government of President Kabbah was replaced by a military junta headed by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) in 1997.

The Accused, Brima, Kamara and Kanu, were leading members of the fighting forces of the AFRC throughout the armed conflict until the hostilities ended with the Lomé Peace Accord in July 1999. Trial Chamber II of the Special Court for Sierra Leone found all three Accused responsible for ordering, committing, planning the crimes perpetrated by AFRC forces against civilians, including murder, rape, enslavement, collective punishment, mutilation, burning of civilian property and use of child soldiers in the hostilities. The Accused were also liable as the superiors in charge of AFRC forces for failing to prevent the rapes committed by their subordinates.