Search results

In 2006, Jennifer Harbury, the wife of ex-rebel commander Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez who was killed in Guatemala in the early 1990s, brought a complaint against U.S. governmental officials. Harbury claimed that her husband was captured in 1992 by Guatemalan army officers who were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Harbury claimed that Bamaca was physically abused and tortured during his detention in order to extract information from him about the Guatemalan rebel forces.

Harbury’s tort claim was dismissed because the District Court found that it did not have authority to rule on it since the damage occurred in another state, namely in Guatemala. On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the case involved political questions which are non-justiciable, and, in addition, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Harbury’s tort claim.

From 1 March until mid-June 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi served as Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan Armed Forces, stationed at the École des Sous-officiers (ESO) in Butare prefecture. This case concerns Muvunyi’s responsibility for crimes committed at various locations in Butare Prefecture between April and June 1994.

The Trial Chamber had convicted Muvunyi of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity and had convicted him to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Muvunyi and the Prosecution appealed the trial judgment. The Appeals Chamber overturned the convictions for genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he had given in Gikonko, and other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity. The Appeals Chamber also quashed Muvunyi’s conviction for direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he had given at the Gikore Trade Centre and ordered a retrial limited to the allegations connected with this incident. The Chamber set aside the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 

Momčilo Krajišnik was found guilty by Trial Chamber I on multiple counts of crimes against humanity for his role in the 1991-1992 events in municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He appealed the decision, representing himself. The Appeals Chamber appointed a counsel as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist his case through the filing of an additional appeal in order to represent Krajišnik's interests.

The Appeals Chamber held that Trial Chamber I made errors with respect to the expansion of the crimes forming part of the joint criminal enterprise of the perpetrators and the manner in which Krajišnik could be held liable for them. Therefore, it acquitted Krajišnik of murder, extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected the arguments of the Prosecution, in which the latter argued that the sentence was not properly determined by Trial Chamber I, and should be raised to life imprisonment.

In light of the acquittals on several counts, the Appeals Chamber reduced Krajišnik's sentence from 27 years to 20 years of imprisonment.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population.

In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’. However, regarding other claims (of environmental harm, of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and of consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights) the Court held that it could be assessed whether the plaintiffs should first exhaust legal remedies in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, it gave the plaintiffs one month to decide whether they wished to pursue these claims.