Search results

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. 

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, where the Supreme Court found that certain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) are unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals raised the question of whether it still has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the detainees’ petitions. The Court of Appeal found that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, since the provisions of the DTA relating to the elimination of the habeas corpus rights (the right to challenge the legality of one’s detention) have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the detainees’ petition was dismissed.

In the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Milorad Trbic was a deputy chief of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of the Republika Srpska. He participated in the genocide of Bosniak men in Srebrenica in July 1995 by. He did this by, among other things, firing automatic rifles at them during executions, and supervising and coordinating the detention and execution of Bosniak men at various sites in the area around the city of Zvornik.

Milorad Trbic was first indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). On 27 April 2007, the case was referred the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further processing, pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, taking into consideration the gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused, and the standard of procedure in the country to where the case is referred. 

On 16 October 2009, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Trbic guilty of genocide committed in the Srebrenica area in July 1995, through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE). For criminal responsibility to arise via participation in a JCE there had to be a consistent and core group of actors with a common plan or purpose to commit a crime, with the accused to both intend and participate in the commission of that crime. The Court held that this was the case with Milorad Trbic. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. 

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Residing in exile in Senegal, he was unsuccessfully brought before the Senegalese courts in 2000-2001 at which time the Supreme Court of Senegal confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the acts allegedly committed by Habré were not criminalised under domestic law. In response to an African Union mandate to prosecute Habré, Senegal amended its legislation to provide for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and acts of torture committed by foreign nationals outside of Senegalese territory.

Habré brought a complaint against Senegal before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa alleging that the new legislation breached his human rights, including the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law. The Court held, in a decision that has been criticised for lack of legal basis, that Senegal would violate the principle of non-retroactivity if its tried Habré in its domestic courts. Instead, international custom mandates that Senegal establish a special tribunal to try and prosecute Habté.