Search results

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. Furthermore, the case presented a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions). This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

The Accused, Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, was Minister of Finance of the Interim Government of Rwanda from 9 April 1994 until he left Rwanda on 13 or 14 July 1994.

On 15 July 2004, Trial Chamber I found Ndindabaizi guilty of one count of genocide and two counts of crimes against humanity (extermination and murder) for his role in the events at Gitwa Hill and at the Gaseke roadblock. Ndindabahizi appealed against his convictions and his sentence.

The Appeals Chamber upheld Ndindabahizi's convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his participation in the events at Gitwa Hill in late April 1994 which resulted in the death of thousands of Tutsi. The Chamber reversed the convictions for genocide and murder in relation to the killing of one victim at Gaseke roadblock. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber underlined that Ndindabahizi's criminal responsibility had to be determined according to the entirety of his contribution to the Rwandan genocide. Hence the Chamber unanimously held that his acquittal for the murder of one victim did not diminish the gravity of his actions and it confirmed the life sentence imposed on him. 

Between April and July 1993 the village of Ahmići (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and its surroundings were subjected to an ethnic cleansing targeting the Muslim population. Miroslav Bralo, also known as “Cicko”, actively participated in these attacks as a member of a unit of the Croatian Defence Council. He pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity and war crimes and Trial Chamber III, subsequently, found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment.

Bralo appealed the sentencing judgment of 7 December 2005, challenging Trial Chamber III's assessment of the factors which guided it in determining the final sentence.

Bralo adduced three grounds of appeal. In the first one he argued that Trial Chamber III made an error when it classified certain factors as irrelevant to his sentence. The second ground challenged the Chamber's assessment of the factors which it did take into consideration as relevant for Bralo's sentence. In the last ground, Bralo claimed that Trial Chamber III did not reduce his sentence adequately, considering the volume and relevance of the mitigating circumstances.

The Appeals Chamber did not find any error in the findings of Trial Chamber III and dismissed all three grounds of Bralo's appeal. Subsequently, his sentence of 20 years was affirmed.

Members of the Herero (the Hereros), an African tribe from Namibia, brought a claim against German company Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co. The Hereros claimed that this company used slave labor and ran its own concentration camp during Germany’s occupation of South Africa in the late 19th- and early 20th- century. The Hereros sued the German company for damages suffered during the occupation.

The case was dismissed by the District Court because the Hereros failed to state a claim in their complaint. On 10 April 2007, the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.