Search results

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.

On 4 November 2005, a complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of people injured or killed during the bombing of the UN compound (an area protected by the UN) in Qana on 18 April 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians and wounding hundreds. The plaintiffs claimed that General Moshe Ya’alon, the head of the IDF Army Intelligence who launched the bombing, should be held responsible for the decision to bomb the UN compound.

On 14 December 2006, the District Court dismissed the case, finding that Ya'alon could not be sued because the Court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Ya’alon (as he enjoyed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and denied the need for jurisdictional discovery.

On 15 February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision of the District Court.

Veiz Bjelić was born on 12 September 1949 in Vlasenica. In the period from June 1992 to 26 January 1993, he was a prison guard in the “Štala” prison where Serb civilians and members of the armed forces who no longer participated in the fighting, were detained. During that time, Bjelić repeatedly raped one female person and threatened to kill her if she would tell it to someone. He also led soldiers of the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enter the prison, where they subsequently abused Serb civilians both physically and mentally.

Bjelić was found guilty on 28 March 2003 and was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

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.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions. The legal provisions which suspended this right were found to be unconstitutional. Also, all previous Guantanamo detainees'  corpus petitions were found to be eligible for reinstatement. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the grounds that the United States has unilateral control over Guantanamo Bay and, therefore, the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts.