skip navigation

Search results

> Refine results with advanced case search

730 results (ordered by date)

<< first < prev   page 94 of 146   next > last >>

South African Apartheid Litigation: Lungisile Ntsbeza et al v. Daimler AG et al., and Khulumani et al. v. Barclays National Bank et al.

Opinion and Order, 8 Apr 2009, United States District Court Southern District of New York, United States

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. After the Supreme Court remitted the case, the District Court established a framework to determine when corporations can be held liable for human rights violations. Simply doing business with a state which violates the law of nations is not sufficient to establish liability, but if a corporation provides means by which human rights violations can be carried out and if the corporation knows that its action will substantially contribute the perpetrator in committing human rights violations, liability can be established. After applying this framework to several allegations made against several corporations, the Court establishes that part of these claims are plausible, thus allowing these claims to proceed. 


Brown et al. v. Rwanda: Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinja, Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Celestin Ugirashebuja v. The Government of Rwanda and The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Judgment (Appeal against extradition), 8 Apr 2009, High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Great Britain (UK)

Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinya and three other men claimed asylum in the United Kingdom after the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. In 2006, Rwanda requested extradition of the four men for their alleged involvement in the genocide. On 28 December 2006, the four suspects were arrested in the United Kingdom.

The men appealed their extradition before the High Court. The judges determined that there is a real risk that the four men would not be granted a fair trial in Rwanda, and determined that the suspects could not be extradited to Rwanda. 


Selimović et al.: Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Mehura Selimović, Adil Ružnić and Emir Mustafić

Indictment, 16 Apr 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Preliminary Hearing Judge, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mehura Selimović was born on 4 April 1962, and is a former military, police affairs and counter-intelligence officer of the 5th Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH). Adil Ružnić was born on 2 August 1967, and is a former Assistant Commander for Security Affairs of the 5th Corps of the Army of RBiH. Emir Mustafić is a former member of the 5th Corps of the Army of RBiH. While holding these positions, they assisted soldiers detaining civilians and members of enemy forces that were no longer fighting in the Adil Bešić military barracks in Bihać, in a camp in the plastic factory in Petrovac, in the Luke prison in Bihać, and in other locations. In these locations, the detainees were held in unhealthy conditions, forced to perform hard work, and subjected to harsh interrogations and physical mistreatment. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina charged Selimović, Ružnić and Mustafić with war crimes against civilians and war crimes against prisoners of war because of their involvement in the crimes.


Škrobić: Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Marko Škrobić

Second Instance Verdict, 22 Apr 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section for War Crimes, Appelate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 31 July 1992, in Novo Selo (Kotor Varoš Municipality), Marko Škrobić, as a member of the Kotor Varoš HVO (Croat Defence Council) unit, entered the house of Glamocak family, together with four other armed persons. He ordered Boro Glamocak and his family to leave the house immediately. He also forced Stojko Glamocak, Boro’s father, out of the adjacent building and marched the family into the direction of the village of Ravne. On the way to that village, Marko Škrobić shot Stojko with a pistol, leading to his death.

A Trial Court had found Škrobić guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment on 22 October 2008. Both the Defence and Prosecution appealed to this decision.

The Appellate Panel dismissed as unfounded an appeal filed by the Prosecutor’s Office; dismissed appeals filed by the Defence and upheld an appeal filed by the Defence regarding the sentencing. The Panel held that the Trial Court had failed to properly take account of the fact that Škrobić was a married father of two minor children. Therefore, the Panel revised the sentence of Škrobić to nine years’ imprisonment


Jurinović: The Prosecutor v. Tomo Jurinović

Decision on Transfer of Criminal Proceedings, 22 Apr 2009, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the armed conflict that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia pitting Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) was the official military formation of the Bosnian Croats. The Accused, Tomo Jurinović, was a member of the HVO wing in Kotor Varoš. On 31 July 1992, he is alleged to have forcibly removed a family from their home in Novo Selo with three other members of the HVO. The family was then marched to the village of Ravne where they were detained by the Accused and others on the premises of a school. During this march, the family was routinely abused and one of its members died.

The Accused was indicted for war crimes by the Prosecutor’s Office in the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon request of the Prosecutor and with support of counsel for the Accused, the Court decided to transfer the case to the court of Banja Luka. The factors that were taken into consideration by the Court included the simplicity of the case by comparison to others before the Court (the Accused did not occupy the role of a commander, there was only one deceased, the case concerned one incident), the workload of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office and the expenses that could be saved by transferring the case. 


<< first < prev   page 94 of 146   next > last >>