Search results

The Filártiga family, Dolly and Dr. Joel Filártiga, Paraguay nationals, claim that on 29 March 1976, Dr. Filártiga’s seventeen-year-old son Joelito Filártiga was kidnapped and tortured to death by the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at that time, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala (Peña). They claim that Joelito was maltreated because his father was a longstanding opponent of the government of Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner who ruled over the country since 1954.

In 1978, Joelito’s sister Dolly Filártiga and (separately) Américo Peña came to the United States. Dolly applied for political asylum, while Peña stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of Peña's presence in the United States and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who arrested and ordered the deportation of Peña for staying well past the expiration of his visa.

Immediately after, on 6 April 1979, the Filártiga family filed a complaint before US courts alleging that Peña had wrongfully caused Joelito's death by torture and seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $ 10,000,000. In support of federal jurisdiction, the Filártiga family relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute of 1789. They also sought to enjoin Peña’s deportation to ensure his availability for testimony at trial. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was absent and for forum non conveniens, but on appeal the Filártiga family succeeded: the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, ruled that even though the Filártiga family did not consist of US nationals and that the crime was committed outside the US, the family was allowed to bring a claim before US courts. It held that torture was a violation of the laws of nations and that federal jurisdiction was provided.

Marcos Orlando Letelier del Solar was a Chilean economist, socialist politician, diplomat and foreign minister during the presidency of the socialist President Salvador Allende. He became a refugee in the United States following the military dictatorship of General August Pinochet (1973-1990). On 21 September 1977, together with Ronni Moffitt, his American aide, they were assassinated by DINA (the Chilean secret police under Pinochet) agents after an explosive device was detonated under Orlando Letelier’s automobile.

In 1978, their relatives sued Chile and several individuals allegedly involved in the case. The District Court of Washington D.C. found that it had jurisdiction over the action and found the defendants to have killed Letelier and Moffitt while acting within the scope of their employment. The Court awarded more than $5,000,000 to the families of the two victims.

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack and which they considered guilty of torture.

The District Court did not assess the merits, as the Court held, most importantly, that the relevant provisions of international law did not provide the plaintiffs with the possibility to take legal action. In several parts of the opinion, the Court clearly stated its opinion that it is not up to the federal courts to judge on claims arising under international law, unless an international legal provision grants a private right to sue. A federal court should not be a substitute for an international tribunal and the judiciary should not interfere with foreign affairs and international relations, according to the Court.

Also, the Court held that too much time had passed since the attack to take the matter to court. Thus, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed.  

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

The present decision was his final appeal against the French authorities for having illegally detained him on the basis of a dissimulated extradition. The Supreme Court of France, Criminal Law Chamber rejected his appeal finding that his expulsion was not null and there was no obstacle to proceedings against him. Furthermore, his detention was in the interests of the international community which, through the UN, had agreed to help facilitate the return of individuals suspected of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity to the countries where they had perpetrated such offences for the purposes of being brought to justice. 

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

The present decision was his final appeal challenging the proceedings against him on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his alleged crimes had expired and that the French law of 1964 which held that there are no statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity was contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. The Supreme Court of France (Criminal Law Chamber) rejected the appeal. It held that it was a general principle of civilised nations that crimes against humanity were not subject to statutes of limitation, meaning that an individual suspected of having committed them could be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago the alleged crimes occurred.