Search results

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was involved in extracting and development of oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Concerned over the devastating environmental impact that Shell’s activities were having on the region, a group of individuals known collectively as the Ogoni Nine, protested against Shell’s activities. The Ogoni Nine were detained by the Nigerian military junta on spurious charges, held without charge, tortured and hanged following a sham trial before a Special Tribunal in November 1995.

The present dispute is a class action filed by 12 Nigerian individuals, now US residents, seeking compensation from Shell for having aided and abetted the Nigerian government to summarily execute the activists in an effort to suppress protests against Shell’s oil operations. Specifically, they allege that Shell bribed and tampered with witnesses and paid Nigerian security forces that attacked Ogoni villages.

The present decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York is a response to Shell’s motion seeking the dismissal of all charges against it and its holding companies. The Court partially granted the request. It upheld the charges for crimes against humanity of torture and arbitrary arrest and detention on the ground that they constituted established norms of international law giving rise to a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute. 

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US Government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).

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.

Lexiuste Cajuste, an elementary school teacher who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by Haitian military forces in 1993, and Marie Jeanne Jean, whose husband was killed during the Raboteau Massacre in April 1994, filed a claim against former Haitian Colonel Carl Dorélien. The plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was one of the most powerful members of the military regime that ruled Haiti from October 1991 to September 1994 and that, despite Dorélien’s position and influence, he failed to prevent the abuses committed by the Haitian military. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was responsible for the military discipline and justice but failed to punish his subordinates who committed crimes.

The jury trial found Dorélien culpable for torture, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, and crimes against humanity; and the Court of District ordered him to pay $4.3 million in damages to the plaintiffs.