730 results (ordered by date)
<< first
< prev
page 5 of
146
next >
last >>
Pol Pot & Ieng Sary: People’s Revolutionary Tribunal Held in Phnom Penh for the Trial of the Genocide Crime of the Pol Pot - Ieng Sary Clique
Judgement of the Revolutionary People’s Tribunal Held in Phnom Penh From 15 to 19 August 1979, 19 Aug 1979, Revolutionary People’s Tribunal, Cambodia
From 1975 until 1979, the notorious Khmer Rouge ruled the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, now Cambodia. The accused, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary were Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under the regime whose conduct resulted in the deaths of some 3 million people, or 40% of the entire population. Supporters of the former regime including soldiers, officials and civil servants, as well as those perceived to be a threat including students, intellectuals, professors, scientists, opposition organisations were brutally exterminated on a massive scale. The entire population of several cities, including the capital Phnom Penh, were forcibly evacuated from their homes, their property was stolen by the state and they were left to die of starvation and disease. Approximately 4 million persons were herded into “commues”, disguised concentration camps in which men, women and children above the age of 10 were put to hard labour. Tens of thousands were brutally tortured by members of the regime, their bodies cut open, subject to electroshock and live surgery. Forced marriages and rape were common place. Children were either put to death in brutal and vicious ways or recruited into armed units to fight. The regime was finally overthrown by Vietnam in January 1979 and the Revolutionary Council established a special tribunal, the Revolutionary People’s Tribunal.
By the present decision, the tribunal convicted Pol Pot and Ieng Sary of genocide and sentenced them to death. Unfortunately, the value of the decision is merely symbolic as the trials were held without the presence of the accused. Pol Pot died in 1998; Ieng Sary is currently on trial before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for genocide.
Filartiga v. Peña-Irala: Dolly M.E. Filartiga and Joel Filartiga v. Americo Norberto Peña-Irala
Opinion, 30 Jun 1980, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States
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.
De Letier v. Chile: Isabel Morel De Letelier, et al. v. The Republic of Chile, et al.
Memorandum Opinion, 5 Nov 1980, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
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.
Tel-Oren v. Libya: Hanoch Tel-Oren, et al., v. Libyan Arab Republic, et al.
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 Jun 1981, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
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.
Barbie: The Prosecutor v. Klaus Barbie
Arrêt , 6 Oct 1983, Supreme Court (Criminal Law Chamber), France
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.
<< first
< prev
page 5 of
146
next >
last >>