Forti v. Suarez Mason: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Forti v. Suarez Mason''' was a 1987 court case before the [[ | '''Forti v. Suarez Mason''' was a 1987 court case before the [[U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of California]]. The Court held that [[Argentina|Argentinean]] torturers, who had acted against Argentinean citizens without a clear tie to the U.S., were ''[[hostis humani generis]]'' and thus subject to the jurisdiction of any country, even though the acts had not taken place in that country, and the parties were not citizens of that country. <ref name=Forti1987>{{cite court | ||
|litigants=Forti v. Suarez-Mason | |litigants=Forti v. Suarez-Mason | ||
|vol=672 | |vol=672 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|court=US Circuit Court for the Northern District of California | |court=US Circuit Court for the Northern District of California | ||
|date=1987 | |date=1987 | ||
|http://lic.law.ufl.edu/~nagan/forti2.pdf}}</ref> The opinion, in part, was based on the precedent set in the 1984 [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]] ruling by the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]].<ref name=Filartiga>{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Filartiga v. Pena-Irala | |||
|vol=630 | |||
|reporter=F.2d | |||
|opinion=876 | |||
|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | |||
|date=January 10, 1984 | |||
|url=http://www.swradioafrica.com/Documents/Final_Judgment.htm}}</ref> | |url=http://www.swradioafrica.com/Documents/Final_Judgment.htm}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | ||
Latest revision as of 06:00, 18 August 2024
Forti v. Suarez Mason was a 1987 court case before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. The Court held that Argentinean torturers, who had acted against Argentinean citizens without a clear tie to the U.S., were hostis humani generis and thus subject to the jurisdiction of any country, even though the acts had not taken place in that country, and the parties were not citizens of that country. [1] The opinion, in part, was based on the precedent set in the 1984 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[2]
References
- ↑ Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F. Supp 1531 (US Circuit Court for the Northern District of California 1987)
- ↑ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit January 10, 1984)