Search results

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 kidnap and murder. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal established that the forcible abduction stood in the way of Alvarez-Machain’s trial in the United States. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that while crossing another state’s border to abduct someone might constitute a violation of international law, it was not a violation of the extradition treaty. Relying on previous case law, the Supreme Court established that Alvarez-Machain’s forcible abduction did not prohibit his trial in a United States court.

Paul Touvier was a collaborator in Vichy France. He was arrested after World War II on charges of treason and collaborating with the enemy and sentenced to death but escaped in 1947 and escaped prosecution for the next 43 years. The statute of limitations for these sentences elapsed in March 1967. However, time limitations for crimes against humanity were abolished in France in 1964, and Touvier was arrested on 24 May 1989 and charged with complicity in crimes against humanity. He was accused of crimes against humanity, committed while carrying out his function as local leader of the Second Service of the Militia in Lyon: involvement in raids, the arrest, torture and deportation of resistance members and the execution of seven Jews in Rillieux on 28 and 29 June 1944.

However, the Court of Appeal in Paris found that, apart from the crimes committed in Rillieux, there was not enough evidence to indict Touvier and declared the charges inadmissible. The Court also ruled that the remaining charge, the crimes committed in Rillieux, could not be classified as crimes against humanity, thus rendering the charge invalid as the period of prescription period had elapsed.

The Cour de Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, but only with regards to the murders in Rillieux. The Cour de Cassation ruled that the events in Rillieux in fact constituted crimes against humanity.  

Hirute Abebe-Jira, EdgeGayehu Taye and Elizabeth Demissie were victims of the so-called “Red Terror” campaign in Ethiopia directed by Mengistu Haile Mariam during his dictatorship in the mid-1970s. The three women were questioned, beaten, threatened and ordered to undress during their illegal detention. The women brought a complaint against Kelbessa Negewo who personally supervised and participated in the interrogations and torture of the women. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found Kelbessa Negewo guilty and ordered him to pay $500,000 in damages to the three women. Negewo appealed. On 10 January 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.

Jean Bosco Barayagwiza was leader of the Rwandan Hutu political party known as the Coalition pour la Défense de la République (CDR). CDR militia, under his leadership, participated in the 1994 torture and massacre of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsi minority, as well as moderate members of the Hutu majority.

Barayagwiza was also the owner and board member of radio station RTLM, which encouraged the violence against the Tutsi by broadcasting messages of hate stating that the Tutsi were "the enemy", "traitors," and "deserved to die”.

A lawsuit for damages was filed against Barayagwiza by individuals related to persons who died in the massacres. On 9 April 1996, the District Court of New York ordered the award of $500,000 per relative for pain and suffering, $1,000,000 in punitive damages per relative victim, in addition to the $5,000,000 requested for each plaintiff.

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte assumed power in Chile as a result of a military coup that overthrew the then government of President Allende. Pinochet was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army until 1974 when he assumed the title of President of the Republic. His presidency lasted until 1990 and his role as Commander in Chief until 1998. His regime was known for its systematic and widespread violations of human rights, with allegations of murder, torture and hostage taking of political opponents.

In 1998, during a visit to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by the English authorities with a view to extraditing him to Spain where a Spanish judge had issued an international arrest warrant. His extradition was, however, not to proceed smoothly as Pinochet applied to have the arrest warrant quashed on the grounds that as a former Head of State he enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings.

By the present decision, the High Court of Justice quashed the arrest warrant on the grounds that Pinochet enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings under the 1978 State Immunity Act. However, the Court delayed the effect of the quashing until such time as the matter had been decided on appeal to the House of Lords.