Search results

Ratko Bundalo, Neđo Zeljaja and Đorđislav Aškraba were Serbian officials accused by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina of involvement in crimes against humanity during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990’s. On 21 December 2009, Bundalo and Zeljaja were found guilty in first instance and sentenced to 19 and 15 years’ imprisonment respectively. Aškraba was acquitted of all charges. Bundalo and Zeljaja appealed against their conviction, while the prosecutor appealed against Aškraba’s acquittal as well as against the height of the sentences of the other two.

The second instance verdict, which revised the first instance verdict, was delivered on 28 January 2011. The second instance verdict found the accused guilty of the crime against humanity of persecution. Bundalo was sentenced to a 22-year prison sentence and Zeljaja to 15 years. The accused were acquitted of certain charges under the indictment because the acts charged against them were not codified as a criminal offence under the law, and/or because it was not proven that the accused committed the acts as charged. Against the accused Aškraba, a partial retrial was ordered. 

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack. They based their action on, most importantly, a paragraph of the US Code which allows aliens to file action against an alleged violation of the law of nations or a treaty. 

After the District Court had dismissed their case, the Court of Appeals had to assess the plaintiffs’ appeal against this Opinion. It turned out that the Appellate Panel disagreed on basically everything except on the final conclusion: the dismissal was affirmed. Judge Bork denied the existence of a right to sue altogether, stating that nor the law of nations, nor treaties provided the plaintiffs with this right. Judge Robb considered the questions to be answered in this case too political to be answered in a court. Matters regarding the international status of terrorist acts and sensitive matters of diplomacy should be left to politicians, in his opinion. 

After the Chilean military staged a coup d’état in September 1973, elected President Salvador Allende was replaced with a military junta, chaired by Augusto Pinochet. During his time in office, widespread human rights violations were reported. In this case, the plaintiffs sought to establish the responsibility of the United States, more particularly former National Security Adviser and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for these human rights violations. According to several victims and family of victims, the United States played an important role in the military coup, for example by funding and assisting the military.

The District Court had dismissed the claim on its merits, but the Court of Appeals held that the Court did not even have jurisdiction. Under US law, claims regarding strictly political questions, for example regarding foreign policy and defense, are barred. The Court held that this claim regarded measures taken to implement foreign policy and that a judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics. 

The complaint against Radovan Karadžić was filed by victims and survivors of the crimes committed in Bosnia during the Bosnian War in 1992-1995. They requested compensation for the suffering they have experienced. The crimes alleged include, but are not limited to rape, murder, beatings, and emotional distress.  

On 4 October 2000, the District Court ordered Radovan Karadžić to pay $4.5 billion in damages to the victims and survivors.