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 Bosnian Serb Forces conducted a campaign of attacks against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and Žepa between March and September 1995. 

After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, the men were separated from the women, children and elderly, and transported to locations where they were detained and killed. 

The Trial Chamber found that these acts constituted genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Chamber found that there were two separate criminal plans, the first of which aimed to murder the Bosnian Muslim men, and the second to remove the civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa. 

For their acts and omissions, the seven accused were found guilty on several counts. The Chamber found all of the accused responsible on counts of crimes against humanity. Popović, Beara, Nikolić, and Borovčanin were found guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war, and with the exception of Borovčanin, they were also found guilty on charges of genocide. 

While Popović and Beara received a punishment of life imprisonment, the rest received sentences between 5 and 35 years of imprisonment.

What happens if a country suspects a national of another country of being involved in the murder of one of its officials? In many cases, the former country will request an extradition of the suspect. But what happens if the latter country refuses?

In this case, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, having lost one of its own at the hands of a Mexican drug cartel, took matters in its own hands and forcibly abducted one of the suspects, Humberto Alvarez—Machain. In the United States, he was indicted for participation in kidnapping and murder. The District Court established that the forcible abduction stood in the way of Alvarez-Machain’s trial in the United States. The Court of Appeals, relying on previous case law, agreed. It established that forcible abduction violated the extradition treaty between the US and Mexico. According to the Court of Appeals, this conclusion was substantiated by official Mexican protests against the abduction.

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In the first instance verdict discussed here, the Thai Court denied the US petition to extradite Bout, stating that the crimes of which Bout was accused did not fall within the scope of the Extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand. Thailand did not consider the FARC to be a terrorist organisation and the Court held that the US accused Bout of a political offense, for which extradition was not possible. Moreover, the Court held that the crimes of which Bout was accused were not punishable in Thailand, as the offense was committed against ‘foreigners outside Thailand’.