Search results

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 

After the takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, several thousand Bosniak men fled and attempted to reach Bosnian territory. Many of them were detained and over 1000 men were brought to a warehouse and executed. Vaso Todorović, a former policeman who was involved in capturing and detaining these men and who stood guard as these men were killed, was initially charged with genocide. However, these charges were amended to a charge of crimes against humanity, and Todorović entered into a plea agreement. The Court had to assess whether there was enough evidence for a conviction and whether his plea was credible. After establishing that a widespread or systematic attack against civilians had taken place in Srebrencia, the Court established that Todorović knew about the attack and that his actions should be regarded in the context of the attack. The Court considered proven that Todorović had participated in detaining men in a warehouse, after which he prevented them from escaping their subsequent execution. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

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.

The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes.

The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. Still, the judge did recognise that a person committing a war crime could be liable under civil law, for example a person who ‘knowingly participates in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’.

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.