| ||||
| Title: | Legal Cases | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of publishing: | July 29, 2010 | |||
| Hits: | 41023 | |||
| Category: | Other content | |||
Legal Cases
-
Past-related legal cases
-
Time-related legal cases
-
Memory-related legal cases
-
History-related legal cases
-
Historian-related legal cases
Disclaimer: The fact that NCH presents the following legal decisions does not imply that it shares the views and beliefs of the historians and others mentioned in it.
AFGHANISTAN
See United States 2010.
ALGERIA
See France.
ANDORRA
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Pla and Puncernau versus Andorra [E] ♦ [Subject: Last will]
ANGOLA
2024: UN Special Rapporteurs Allegations Letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Influence of government in Commission for Reconciliation in Memory of the Victims of Conflict; exhumation of victims of “27 May 1977” killings]
ARGENTINA
1998-2000: Corte Suprema, Aguiar de Lapacó: Sentencia (1998) [S] ♦ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Aguiar de Lapacó versus Argentina (1999) [E][S] ♦ Updated version (2000) [E][S] ♦ [Subject: Amnesty laws invalid; right to mourn]
2002: Poder Judicial de la Nación, Miguel Brevetta Rodríguez versus Raúl Dargoltz (2002) [S] ♦ [Subject: Defamation charge against historian]
2008: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kimel versus Argentina [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation charge against historian]
2014: Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, María Belén Rodríguez versus Google [S] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten in case of unauthorized commercial use of model's image]
2022: Juzgado Federal de Resistencia 1, FRE 9846/2019 [S] ♦ [Subject: Truth trial about the 1924 Napalpí massacre]
See also Italy 2000.
ARMENIA
2009: Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Communities, Ararat Center for Strategic Research versus Caucasus Institute Foundation: claim [E] ♦ [Subject: Denial of Armenian genocide]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Murad Bojolyan versus Armenia [E] ♦ [Subject: Espionage charge against historian]
See also Switzerland 2007, Turkey.
AUSTRALIA
1982: Supreme Court of Victoria: Pitjantjatjara Council Inc & Peter Nganingu versus John Lowe & Lyn Bender [E] ♦ [Subject: Ownership of slides of secret ceremonies taken by anthropologist]
1992: High Court of Australia: Mabo versus Queensland [E] ♦ [Subject: Terra nullius]
1996: High Court of Australia: Wik Peoples versus Queensland [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal land claims in areas of pastoral leases]
1996: Australian Press Council: Adjudication No. 890 (November 1996); “General Press Release No. 210” (January 1997) [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation of historian Manning Clark]
1997: High Court of Australia: David Lange versus Australian Broadcasting Corporation [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2002: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory: Windschuttle versus ACP Publishing [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of historian]
2002: Australian Press Council: Adjudication No.1151 (January 2002); Richard Buchhorn versus The Australian [E] ♦ [Subject: Book review about Henry Reynolds, An Indelible Stain? The Question of Genocide in Australia's History]
2004: Federal Court of Australia: Bolton (on behalf of the Southern Noongar Families) versus State of Western Australia [E] ♦ [Subject: Native title determinations]
2014: Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia, Fernandes versus National Archives of Australia [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to archival files about Indonesian war crimes in East-Timor in 1981-1982]
2020: High Court of Australia, Hocking versus National Archives of Australia: Judgment [E]; Summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to archival files about 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam; royal secrecy]
2022: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Daniel Billy et al. versus Australia (CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019) (22 September 2022) [E] ♦ [Subject: failure to protect against climate change violated rights to culture and privacy]
See also New Zealand 2000.
AUSTRIA
1986: European Court of Human Rights: Lingens versus Austria [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Less immunity for politicians than for ordinary citizens]
1989: European Commission of Human Rights: B. H., M. W., H.P., G.K. versus Austria [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1994: European Commission of Human Rights: Walter Ochensberger versus Austria [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1996: European Commission of Human Rights: Friedrich Rebhandl versus Austria [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1996: European Commission of Human Rights: Hans Jorg Schimanek versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: Glorification of Third Reich]
1997: European Commission of Human Rights: Gerd Honsik versus Austria [E] (partial decision 1995: [E]) ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1997: European Commission of Human Rights: Oberschlick versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of political party leader by comparing the latter with a Nazi]
1998: European Commission of Human Rights: Herwig Nachtmann versus Austria [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2003: European Court of Human Rights: Krone Verlag versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2008: European Court of Human Rights: Pfeifer versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation on account of criticizing neo-Nazi reinterpretation of history]
2013: European Court of Human Rights: Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: access to information for research on past transfers of land ownership]
2016: European Court of Human Rights: Genner versus Austria [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation of interior minister]
AZERBAIJAN
2010: European Court of Human Rights, Eynulla Fatullayev versus Azerbaijan [E] ♦ [Subject: Insult of honor and dignity of Azerbaijanis for writings about war crime]
2016: European Court of Human Rights, Yunusova & Yunusov versus Azerbaijan [E] ♦ [Subject: Medical treatment of two historians and human rights activists in detention]
2020: European Court of Human Rights, Yunusova & Yunusov versus Azerbaijan [E] ♦ [Subject: Arrest and pre-trial detention of two historians and human rights activists in detention]
BAHRAIN
2015: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Destruction of Shia cultural heritage and marginalization of Shia in historical narratives]
BANGLADESH
2014: International Crimes Tribunal, Abul Kalam Azad versus David Bergman [E] ♦ [Subject: contempt proceedings because journalist had questioned the official estimate of 1971 genocide victims]
See: Pakistan 1973.
BELARUS
2000: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Laptsevich versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Confiscation of historian's leaflet]
2011: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Gryb versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Refusal to issue lawyer's licence for participation in commemoration]
2012: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Belyazeka versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Arrest for participation in commemoration]
2013: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Komarovsky versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Arrest for leading a commemoration]
2014: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Kovalenko versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Breaking up a peaceful assembly aimed at commemorating the victims of the Stalinist repression]
2014: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Symonik versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Confiscation of leaflets commemorating the 1990 independence of Belarus]
2015: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Surgan versus Belarus [E] ♦ [Subject: Imposition of a fine for disclosing a traditional flag]
BELGIUM
1983: European Commission of Human Rights, T. versus Belgium [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2008: European Commission of Human Rights, Epstein versus Belgium: decision [E] ♦ [Subject: discrimination of Jewish and Roma victims of World War II according to nationality]
2012: Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, Dino versus Multimédia [F] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten; Internet archives]
2016: Cour de cassation, P.H. versus O.G. [F] ♦ comment [D] [Subject: Right to be forgotten; Internet archives]
2020: Rechtbank Eerste Aanleg [Court of First Instance], Benoît de Bonvoisin versus University of Ghent & Lander Van De Sompel: judgment [D] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of historical figure in master thesis]
2021: Grondwettelijk hof [Constitutional Court], Luc Lamine, Alphonsius Mariën, Serge Artunoff and others, Appeal: Judgment [D][F] ♦ [Subject: Denial of Armenian Genocide]
2021–2023: European Court of Human Rights, Hurbain versus Belgium: Judgment [F]; Amicus curiae brief [E;] Grand Chamber judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Integrity of internet archives; right to be forgotten]
2022: Tribunal de première instance (Bruxelles), Four associations of paratroopers versus Belgium [Royal Museum of Central Africa, MRAC]: Judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: [mis]presentation of the 1964 Operation Red Dragon in Congo]
See also: Senegal.
BOLIVIA
2022: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Caso Flores Bedregal y otras versus Bolivia: sentencia [S] ♦ [Subject:order to open military archives in disappearance case]
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
2001: International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor versus Radislav Krstić [E]; appeal 2004 [E] ♦ [Subject: Erasure of evidence for genocide]
2006: International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor versus Momčilo Krajišnik [E] ♦ [Subject: Destruction of cultural monuments and sacred sites]
2007: International Court of Justice, Bosnia-Herzegovina versus Serbia-Montenegro [E][F] Note: without 11 individual opinions ♦ [Subject: Application of Genocide Convention]
2024: Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Extraordinary Plenary Session (11 October 2024) [E] ♦ [Subject: temporary suspension of history curriculum for elementary school in Republika Srpska]
See also: Netherlands 2014.
BRAZIL
2006: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Nogueira de Carvalho et al. versus Brazil: judgment [E][P][S] ♦ summary [S] ♦ [Subject: Right to the truth; right to effective remedy; duty to investigate; lawyer of Centro de Direitos Humanos e Memória Popular]
2010: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) versus Brazil [E][P][S] ♦ [Subject: Guerrilla under dictatorship of 1964-1985)]
[2012]: Associação Nacional de História (ANPUH), "O STF não sabe o que é história" [P] ♦ [Subject: National Association of Historians asks withdrawal of resolution of Supreme Federal Court about the historical value of the latter's documents]
BULGARIA
1997: European Commission of Human Rights, Panev versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2001: European Court of Human Rights, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Peaceful assembly of historical association]
2005: European Court of Human Rights, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Peaceful assembly of historical association]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden et al.versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Peaceful assembly of historical association]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden–Pirin et al.versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Peaceful assembly of historical association]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Ivanov et al. versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Peaceful assembly of historical association]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Anchev versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Complaint of privacy invasion about published lustration research that applicant had been former State Security service collaborator dismissed]
2021: European Court of Human Rights, Handzhiyski versus Bulgaria [E] ♦ [Subject: Defilement of Communist leader’s statue as a symbolic gesture]
See also Macedonia.
BURKINA FASO
2006: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Sankara versus Burkina Faso [E][F] ♦ [Subject: death certificate & burial place of former head of state; right to the truth; continuing violation]
CAMBODIA
1962: International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia versus Thailand) [E][F] ♦ [Subject: temple of Preah Vihear as heritage of humanity]
2012: Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Case of Nuon Chea et al.: Decision about historian as expert witness [E] ♦ [Subject: historian as expert witness]
2013: International Court of Justice, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) [E][F]; provisional measures (2011): press telease [E]; summary [E]; order [E][F] ♦ [Subject: temple of Preah Vihear as heritage of humanity])
CANADA
1990: Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec versus Régent Sioui, Conrad Sioui, Georges Sioui & Hugues Sioui [E] ♦ [Subject: Historical treaty]
1990: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Lubicon Lake Band versus Canada [E] ♦ [Subject: Historical inequities]
1992: Supreme Court of Canada, R. versus Ernst Zündel [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1996: Supreme Court of Canada, Malcolm Ross versus New Brunswick School District No. 15 [E] ♦ 2000: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Ross versus Canada [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1996: Supreme Court of Canada, Yukon Human Rights Commission & Madeleine Gould versus Yukon Order of Pioneers et al.: judgment [E], published version [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Application for membership of historical association denied on gender grounds]
1996: Supreme Court of Canada, R. versus Van der Peet [E], published version [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal rights]
1996: Supreme Court of Canada, R. versus Barger [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal rights]
1996: Supreme Court of Canada, R versus Côté: judgment [E], published version [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal traditions and rights prior to 1763]
1997: Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw versus British Columbia [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal title; value of oral history]
1999: Supreme Court of Canada, Marshall versus Her Majesty the Queen [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal traditions and rights prior to 1763]
2001: Supreme Court of Canada, Minister of National Revenue versus Grand Chief Michael Mitchell aka Kanentakeron [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal rights]
2002-2003: 2002: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Sabina Citron & Canadian Human Rights Commission versus Ernst Zündel: decision [E] ♦ 2003: UN Human Rights Committee, Zündel versus Canada [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2003: Cour d’appel de Québec, Turgeon versus Michaud [F] ♦ [Subject: Commissioned history; privacy]
2005: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Zündel versus Canada [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2006: Supreme Court of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen versus Dale Sappier & Clark Polchies and Her Majesty the Queen versus Darrell Joseph Gray [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal rights]
2011: “Settlement of Barrick Gold Lawsuit Against the Authors and the Publisher of Noir Canada” [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Defamatory accusation of involuntary genocide by gold corporation]
2017: Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Brown versus Canada: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: The "Sixties Scoop" - forced adoption of indigenous children in 1960s-1980s]
2018: Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Fontaine versus Canada: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: privacy protections applicable to the records of Truth and Reconciliation Commission]
2021: Supreme Court of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen versus Richard Lee Desautel: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Aboriginal rights]
CHAD
See: Senegal.
CHILE
2006: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Marcel Claude Reyes et al. versus Chile [E] ♦ [Subject: Freedom of information / right to information]
2010: Observatorio para la protección de los defensores de derechos humanos, "Chile: Edwin Dimter Bianchi contra Pascale Bonnefoy; Séptimo juzgado de garantía, Santiago de Chile, 14-18 de enero de 2010: Informe de misión de observación judicial" (2010) [S] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of army officer by journalist writing about the former's cruelty in 1973]
2012: Court of First Instance, Judgment in the case of Carlos Eduardo Guerrero Gutiérrez [S] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearance of history student]
2013: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, García Lucero et al. versus Chile [E][S] ♦ [Subject: Reparation for torture suffered in 1973-1975]
CHINA
2006: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Tohti Tunyaz versus China [E] ♦ [Subject: Arbitrary detention of historian]
2008: Hangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court, Lü Gengsong's Trial Verdict [C] ♦ [Subject: Historian tried for writing on the history of corruption]
2016: Second Intermediate People's Court of Beijing, Ge versus Hong: judgment [C]; ♦ Song versus Hong: judgment [C] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of dead Chinese revolutionary warriors considered heroes by questioning their historic deeds]
2022: United Nations Special Rapporteurs, Allegations Letter (11 November 2022) (UN Doc. AL CHN 6/2022) [E] ♦ [Subject:Forced assimiation of Tibetan children, including in history education]
COLOMBIA
2012–2014: Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, IACHR Takes Case Involving Colombia to Inter-American Court: Press release [E] ♦ Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. versus Colombia [E] ♦ [Subject: 1985 Palace of Justice case, involving historian Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés]
2013: Corte Constitucional, Guillermo Martínez Trujillo versus Google Colombia y Casa editorial El Tiempo [S] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten in mafia cartel case]
2015: Corte Constitucional, Gloria versus Casa editorial El Tiempo [S] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten in human trafficking case]
2019: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Report No. 67/19 — Petition 1372-09: Report on Admissibility: Jaime Enrique Gómez Velásquez and Family, Colombia [E][S] ♦ [Subject: Murder of historian and politician]
CONGO (Democratic Republic)
2017-2018: International Criminal Court (Trial chamber II), Prosecutor versus Germain Katanga: Order for Reparations (2017) [E] ♦ Update after appeal (2018) [E] [F] ♦ [Subject: Transgenerational harm]
See also Belgium 2022.
CROATIA
2012-2014: European Court of Human Rights, Margus versus Croatia: judgment (2012) [E]; Grand Chamber judgment (2014) [E] ♦ [Subject: Use of amnesties in post-conflict situations; amnesty law]
2022: European Court of Human Rights, Šeks versus Croatia: judgment (2022) [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to transcripts of President and historian Franjo Tudjman denied]
CYPRUS
2001: European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: History textbook censorship]
2014: European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Reparations for human rights violations committed after 1974 occupation]
2014: European Court of Human Rights, Gürtekin, Akay, Eray et al. versus Cyprus [E] ♦ [Subject: disappearances in 1963-1964]
See also Turkey 2005, 2009.
CZECH REPUBLIC
1996-2002: European Court of Human Rights, Pezoldova versus Czech Republic [E]; 2002: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Alzbeta Pezoldova versus The Czech Republic [E] ♦ [Subject: Confiscation of family property in 1940 without restitution; denial of archival access]
2005-2010: European Court of Human Rights, Bergauer et al. versus The Czech Republic [E] ♦ 2010: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Josef Bergauer et al. versus The Czech Republic [E] ♦ [Subject: Situation of Sudeten Germans after 1945; reparation]
2015: European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber, Case of Rohlena versus The Czech Republic [E] ♦ [Subject: Analysis of concept of continuous criminal offence]
DENMARK
2006: European Court of Human Rights, The estate of Kresten Filtenborg Mortensen versus Denmark [E] ♦ [Subject: Taking DNA samples from a dead body and privacy of the deceased]
2013: Østre Landsrets 17. afdeling, Jensen versus Dragsdahl [Danish] ♦ [Subject: Historian charged with defamation for calling journalist a KGB agent]
EL SALVADOR
2013: UN Special Rapporteurs Allegations Letters [E] and [E] ♦ [Subject: Tutela Legal office and its archives]
ESTONIA
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Kolk & Kislyiy versus Estonia: admissibility decision [E] ♦ [Subject: conviction for crimes against humanity (deportation of civilian population) in 1949]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Penart versus Estonia: admissibility decision [E] ♦ [Subject: conviction for crimes against humanity in 1953-1954]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Sõro versus Estonia: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: publication of information about past KGB employment and privacy]
ETHIOPIA
1999: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Moti Biyya et al. versus Ethiopia [E] ♦ [Subject: Arbitrary detention of journalists writing, inter alia, books on Oromo history]
FINLAND
1978: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Hartikainen versus Finland [E] ♦ [Subject: Classes on the history of religion and ethics]
FRANCE
1963: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Charles de Gaulle versus Alfred Fabre-Luce [F] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of president]
1967: Cour de Cassation, Charles de Gaulle versus Henry Lémery [F] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of president]
1992: United Nations Human Rights Committee, R.L.M versus France [E] ♦ [Subject: discrimination of teacher of Breton, history, and geography]
1993: Cour de Cassation, Case of Boudarel, 1 [F] ♦ 1999: Cour de Cassation, Case of Boudarel, 2 [F] ♦ 2003: European Court of Human Rights, Sobanski versus France [F] ♦ [Subject: Historian accused of crimes against humanity in Vietnam]
1994: Cour de Cassation, Heirs of Hélène de Portes versus Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber [F] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation]
1995: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Forum des associations arméniennes de France versus Bernard Lewis [F] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide]
1996: European Commission of Human Rights, Marais versus France [F] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1996: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Faurisson versus France [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial; memory law]
1997: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Hopu & Bessert versus France [E] ♦ [Subject: Protection of site of a pre-European burial ground in Tahiti]
1998: European Court of Human Rights, Lehideux & Isorni versus France [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Lapse of time after event; apology of war crimes]
2000–2004: Cour de Cassation, Case of Chauvy (2000) [F] ♦ European Court of Human Rights, Chauvy versus France (2000) [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2001: European Court of Human Rights, Papon versus France: judgment [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Crimes against humanity in World War II]
2002: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Wackenheim versus France [E] ♦ [Subject: Human dignity]
2002: European Court of Human Rights, Pannullo and Forte versus France: judgment: [F] ♦ [Subject: Return of dead body to family]
2003: European Court of Human Rights, Garaudy versus France [E][F] ♦ (importance level: key case) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Radio France versus France [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Éditions Plon versus France [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation; privacy; Right to mourn]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Seurot versus France [F] ♦ [Subject: Hate speech against Muslims by history and geography teacher]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Giniewski versus France [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation, blasphemy]
2007: European Court of Human Rights, Hachette Filipacchi Associés versus France [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Right to mourn; Privacy]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Ely Ould Dah versus France [F] ♦ [Subject: Amnesty law incompatible with states' duty to investigate torture in Mauritania in 1990–91.]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, J.H. and 23 Others versus France; summary: [E]; judgment: [F] ♦ [Subject: Compensation to orphans of World War II deportees]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Orban et al. versus France; summary: [E]; judgment: [F] (judgment of the court of cassation, 2004: [F]) ♦ [Subject: Publicly defending war crimes (torture, summary executions) in Algerian war]
2010: Paris District Court, Fondation Franco-Japonaise dite Sasakawa versus Karoline Postel-Vinay [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Girard versus France: judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Right to bury one's relatives]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Gollnisch versus France: judgment [F] (judgment of the court of cassation, 2009: [F]) ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2012: Conseil Constitutionel (Constitutional Council), Decision: Law on the Punishment of Denials of the Existence of Genocides Recognised by Law [E][F][S] ♦ [Subject: Unconstitutionality of law]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala versus France: judgment [F]; summary [E] ♦ (importance level: key case) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2015-2016: Conseil Constitutionel (Constitutional Council), Decision: Comment on R. Vincent's denial of crimes against humanity [F] ♦ [Subject: negationism; Holocaust denial]
2017: Conseil Constitutionel (Constitutional Council), Presidential archives of François Mitterand on Rwanda: decision [F]; press release [F]; documentation [F]; comment [F] ♦ [Subject: Access presidential archives]
2019: Court of Justice of the European Union, G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. versus Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL): opinion of Advocate-General [F] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2019: Court of Justice of the European Union, Google LLC versus Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL): opinion of Advocate-General [F] ♦ Judgment [E] ♦ Press release [E] ♦ [Subject: right to be forgotten]
2021: Conseil d'État, Association des archivistes français, Association des historiens contemporanéistes de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Association Josette et Maurice Audin and others versus Prime Minister: Decision [F] ♦ [Subject: procedure requiring declassification of records prior to access to defense archives]
2022: European Court of Human Rights, Bonnet versus France: judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Cartoon ridiculing Holocaust]
GEORGIA
2021–2023: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Case of Georgia versus Russia (II): Judgment: Merits [E] & Just Satisfaction [E] (28 April 2023) ♦ [Subject: Compensation for August 2008 invasion by Russian forces into Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of Georgia’s territorial sovereignty]
GERMANY
1971: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Peter Gorski versus Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung [“Mefisto case”] [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation; Freedom of artistic opinion]
1976: European Commission of Human Rights, X versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Reasonable time for proceedings of war crimes committed in World War II]
1981: European Commission of Human Rights, X. versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Scattering of ashes; will; Privacy]
1982: European Commission of Human Rights, X. versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1990: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Franz Josef Strauss versus Stern Magazine [“Coerced democrat case”][E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation; protection of personality]
1993: European Commission of Human Rights, F.P. versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1994: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Federal Examination Office for Literature endangering Young People versus X. [Ugo Walendy] [E] ♦ [Subject: Book ban; Academic freedom of speech, research, and teaching]
1994: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), “Auschwitz Lie” case [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1994–1995: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands appeal [G]; European Commission of Human Rights, Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands versus Germany [E] (importance level: 3) ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1995: European Commission of Human Rights, Otto Remer versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1995: European Commission of Human Rights, Udo Walendy versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1995: European Court of Human Rights, Vogt versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: dismissal of teacher from civil service because of activities on behalf of Communist Party under reference to Weimar Republic]
1996: European Commission of Human Rights, D.I. [David Irving] versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1999–: 1999: European Commission of Human Rights, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch versus Germany [E] (importance level: 3) ♦ 2005: European Commission of Human Rights, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch versus Germany [E] ♦ (importance level: 3) [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2001: European Commission of Human Rights, K.-H. W. versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Nullum crimen sine lege]
2001: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Streletz, Kessler, Krenz versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Nullum crimen sine lege; non-retroactivity]
2001: European Commission of Human Rights, Jürgen Petersen versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Dismissal of history lecturer after German reunification]
2003: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Baumgarten versus Germany [E] ♦ [Subject: Violation of nonretroactivity principle]
2006-2007: Court of Justice of the European Union, Lechouritou et al. versus Germany: opinion of Advocate-General (2006) [E]; judgment (2007) [E] ♦ [Subject: Compensation for descendants of victims of a Nazi German massacre in Greece in 1943]
2010: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), L. versus Oberverwaltungsgerichts Nordrhein-Westfalen / Verwaltungsgerichts Köln: Press release [G]; Judgment [G] ♦ [Subject: withdrawal of journal article about German anti-Semitism during World War II.]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Hoffer & Annen versus Germany: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: aberrant parallel with Holocaust]
2011: Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court], Gaby Weber versus Bundesnachrichtendienst: Decision [G] ♦ [Subject: Access to Adolf Eichmann files]
2012: International Court of Justice, Judgement: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany versus Italy: Greece Intervening) (3 February 2012): press release [E]; summary [E]; judgment [E][F] ♦ [Subject: World War II-based compensation claims against Germany in foreign courts.]
2012: European Court of Human Rights, Peta Deutschland versus Germany: press release [E]; judgment: [E][G] ♦ [Subject: Parallels between concentration camps and animals kept in mass production.]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Annen versus Germany: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: aberrant parallel with Holocaust]
2015–: Website about the Hohenzollern family legal cases against historians, journalists and politicians [G] ♦ [Subject: Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs; more than 120 cases, including about the family past under Nazism and about archival access to the family archives]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, M.L. & W.W. versus Germany: judgment [F]; press release [E] ♦ [Subject: murderers of actor Walter Sedlmayr not allowed the right to be forgotten]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, Nix versus Germany: application inadmissible [E] ♦ [Subject: conviction of blogger for using Nazi symbol]
2019: European Court of Human Rights, Pastörs versus Germany: judgment [E]; press release [E] ♦ (importance level: 2) [Subject: Holocaust denial by member of regional parliament]
2019: European Court of Human Rights, Williamson versus Germany: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial in interview to Swedish television]
2022: European Court of Human Rights, Saure versus Germany: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Refusal, on national security grounds, of journalist’s unsubstantiated request for physical access to Foreign Intelligence Service archives, the content of which files disclosed]
2023: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Lack of participation of Herero and Nama in talks about reparations for 1904–1908 genocide]
See also Namibia 2018, 2023.
GREECE
1996: European Court of Human Rights, Efstratiou versus Greece: judgment: [E] ♦ [Subject: Forced attendance of commemoration at school]
1996: European Court of Human Rights, Valsami versus Greece: judgment: [E] ♦ [Subject: Forced attendance of commemoration at school]
1998: European Court of Human Rights, Sidiropoulos et al. versus Greece; judgment: [E]; reply government: [E] ♦ [Subject: Freedom of association for historical association]
2011: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Sechremelis versus Greece [E] ♦ [Subject: Compensation for descendants of victims of a Nazi German massacre in Greece in 1944]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, House of Macedonian Civilization et al. versus Greece [F] ♦ [Subject: Freedom of association for historical association]
2016: Richter case: summary [Greek1][Greek2] ♦ [Subject: trial for "denial of the crimes of Nazism against the Cretan people"]
2018: Children of General Athanasios Chrysochoou versus three persons [Greek] ♦ [Subject: posthumous defamation]
See also Germany 2006-2007, 2012.
GUATEMALA
2001-2005: Organismo judicial, Caso Juan Gerardi: Sentencia en primera instancia (2001), parte 1 [S] parte 2 [S] parte 3 [S]; Contenido de la Apelación especial por motivo de fondo [S] Sentencia en secunda instancia, sala cuarta (2002) [S]; Sentencia en secunda instancia, sala secunda (2005) [S] ♦ [Subject: Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi, president of the truth commission Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica (REMHI)]
2001: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Matilde Leonor Gonzalez Izas and family versus Guatemala: Decision on Precautionary Measures [E] ♦ [Subject: protection of threatened historian]
2012: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Friendly Settlement Juan Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán [E] ♦ [Subject: legacy of 1954 overthrow and exile of president; reparation]
HONDURAS
1988: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez versus Honduras [E][S] ♦ [Subject: Successor regimes have a duty to investigate and prosecute]
HUNGARY
2008: European Court of Human Rights, Vajnai versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Totalitarian symbols]
2008: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Korbély versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Crime against humanity in 1956; non-retroactivity]
2008-2009: European Court of Human Rights, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért [TASZ; Hungarian civil liberties union] versus Hungary: admissibility (2008): [E] ♦ judgment (2009): [E] ♦ [Subject: Right of access to official documents]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Kenedi versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Historian’s access to state security archives]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Karsai versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation by historian]
2012: Court of Justice of the European Union, Hungary versus Slovak Republic: Opinion [E]; Judgment [E]; Press Release [E] ♦ [Subject: Inauguration of statue of Saint Stephen by president]
2012: European Court of Human Rights, Fáber versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Display of flag with historical connotations]
2012: European Court of Human Rights, Fratanoló versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Display of flag with historical connotations]
2013: European Court of Human Rights, Ungváry & Irodalom versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Historian charged with defamation]
2013: European Court of Human Rights, Vona versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissolution of paramilitary association under reference to historical experience with Arrow Cross]
2016: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Magyar Helsinki Bizottság versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Right of access to public information as part of freedom of expression]
2019: European Court of Human Rights, Geréb versus Hungary [E] ♦ [Subject: Rejection of an archivist's application re alleged defamation]
See also: Slovakia 2012
INDIA
1977: Supreme Court of India, State of Maharashtra versus Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi [E] ♦ [Subject: Amalgation of lists of history teachers and political science teachers]
1984-1987: Supreme Court of India, Government of Tamil Nadu versus Badrinath & Ors [E] (see also 2000) ♦ [Subject: Defamation of historian]
1988: Supreme Court of India, Ramesh.s/o Chotalal Dalal versus Union of India [E] ♦ [Subject: Television series about:1947 partition]
1989: High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Brief Summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
1989: High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, O.O.S.No. 5, Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman et al. versus Rajendra Singh et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
1994: Supreme Court of India, Ismail Faruqui versus Union of India [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
1994: Supreme Court of India, Mohd. Aslam versus Union of India [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
2000: Supreme Court of India, Badrinath versus Government of Tamil Nadu & Others [E] (see also 1984-1987) ♦ [Subject: Defamation of historian]
2002: Supreme Court of India, Aruna Roy versus Union of India, part I [E]; part II [E] ♦ [Subject: School curriculum]
2007: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Mukerjee versus Mukheree [E] ♦ [Subject: Hindu temple Varanasi]
2008: High Court of Delhi, Dina Nath Batra et al. versus University of Delhi et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Article by A. K. Ramanujan about Ramayana; religion; insult]
2010-2014: Supreme Court of India, Dina Nath Batra's Legal Notice to Wendy Doniger & Penguin Books (2010) [E] ♦ Out-of court settlement (2014) [E] ♦ [Subject: Insult complaint against Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History; religion]
2010: Patna High Court, Ram Chandra Mahto vs. State of Bihar: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: 2006 Murder of historian Papiya Ghosh]
2010: Supreme Court of India, State of Maharashtra versus James Laine [E] ♦ [Subject: Ban on book about Shivaji; religion; insult]
2015: Supreme Court of India, Tuljapurkar versus State of Maharashtra: judgment [E]; other version [E] ♦ [Subject: "Historically respected personalities" [Mahatma Gandhi], historically respected persons standard, offence of obscenity]
2015: High Court of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [E] ♦ [Subject: Questions about history in examination]
2017: Supreme Court of India, State (Central Bureau of Investigation) versus Shri Kalyan Singh & Others: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
2019: Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq versus M.S. Das and others: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Ayodhya controversy - Babur mosque/Ram temple]
2022: High Court of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Rajneesh Singh versus Uoi Thru, Ministry of Culture and Others [E] ♦ [Subject: History of Taj Mahal]
2022: High Court of Delhi, Vikram Sampath versus Audrey Truschke and Others [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation by historian for plagiarism allegations]
2024: High Court of Delhi, Sandipan Khan versus Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [E] ♦ [Subject: Lifting of ban on Salman Rushdie's historical novel Satanic Verses]
See also: Pakistan 1973.
INDONESIA
1988: Decision of Attorney General re prohibition of historical novel House of Glass by Pramoedya Ananta Toer [D] ♦ [Subject: Ban on historical novel]
2008: Constitutional Court of Indonesia, Petition of Risang Bima Wijaya & Bersihar Lubis [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of Attorney General's Office for criticizing its ban of history textbooks]
2016: International Peoples' Tribunal on Crimes against Humanity Indonesia 1965, Final Report of the IPT 1965 [E] ♦ [Subject: Atrocities of 1965-1966]
See also Autralia 2014 (Fernandes); Netherlands 2011 (Rawagedeh case), 2013 (objectors' case), 2014 (anti-Sukarno coup), 2015 (executions - two cases), 2016 (rape, torture), 2021 (film); United States 1994 (Kamal Bamadhaj).
IRAN
2018: United Nations Working Group on Arbritrary Detention, Opinion No. 52/2018 concerning Xiyue Wang (Islamic Republic of Iran) [E] ♦ [Subject: Appeal for immediate release of Chinese-American doctoral student]
2020: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding the 1988 prison massacres [E] ♦ [Subject: 1988 Prison massacres]
See also United States 2003 (Kerr), 2021 (Wang).
IRELAND
2012: Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Compliance Committee, Complaint by Tom Cooper re An Tost Fada (The Long Silence) television program: complaint [E]; reply by Irish television RTE [E]; decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Impartiality of television program about 1922 events]
See also United Kingdom 1999; United Kingdom 2015; United States 2011.
ISRAEL
1961-1962: District Court of Jerusalem, Attorney General versus Adolf Eichmann: judgment (1961) [E] ♦ Supreme Court of Israel, Attorney General versus Adolf Eichmann: judgment (1962) [E] [Holocaust trial]
1999: Supreme Court of Israel, Giora Szenes et al. versus The Broadcasting Authority et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation; No prior restraint of historical fiction; Freedom of artistic opinion]
2002: Supreme Court of Israel, Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade [Hebrew] ♦ [Subject: 1948 crimes in Palestinian village of Tantura; defamation]
2012: Supreme Court of Israel, Nakba Law Decision [Hebrew] ♦ additional document: Excerpts of Petition to the Supreme Court against the Nakba Law [E] ♦ [Subject: memory law]
2014: Supreme Court of Israel / High Court of Justice, Bakri and Others, Petition for an Order Nisi [E] ♦ [Subject: ban of film Jenin, Jenin]
See also Netherlands 2008, United States 2014.
ITALY
2000: Corte di assisi di Roma, Italy versus Carlos Guillermo Suárez Masón et al.: judgment and sentence [I]; sentence [S] ♦ [Subject: Murder in 1978 of Argentinian history student Laura Carlotto et al.]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Lombardi Vallauri versus Italy: Judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Academic freedom]
2021: European Court of Human Rights, Biancardi versus Italy: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Integrity of internet archives; right to be forgotten]
See also Germany 2012.
JAPAN
1963: Tokyo District Court, Shimoda et al. versus The State [E] ♦ [Subject: A-bomb]
1993: Supreme Court, Case Concerning the Constitutionality of History Textbook Screening [E] ♦ [Subject: History textbooks]
1996: International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: Advisory Opinion [E][F] ♦ [Subject: nuclear weapons]
1997: Supreme Court, Case Concerning the Legality of Ministry of Education Opinions concerning History Textbooks [E] ♦ [Subject: History textbooks]
2001: The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, The Prosecutors and the Peoples of the Asia-Pacific Region versus Hirohito Emperor Showa et al.: part 1 [E]; part 2 [E] ♦ [Subject: Military sexual slavery system ("comfort women") during the Pacific War]
2007: International Peoples' Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Judgement [E] ♦ [Subject: A-bomb]
2016: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter on "Comfort Women" [E] ♦ [Subject: Sexual slavery system during Pacific War, 1931-1945]
See also Philippines 2023.
LATVIA
2003: European Court of Human Rights, Slivenko versus Latvia: decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Expulsion of family of former Soviet military officer following 1994 withdrawal of Soviet troops; reparation]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Farbtuhs versus Latvia: judgment [F] ♦ press release [E] ♦ summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Crimes against humanity and genocide for role in deportation and deaths of tens of Latvians in 1940-1941]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Zdanoka versus Latvia: decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Ineligibility to stand for election on account of former membership of Communist Party of Latvia (declared unconstitutional)]
2008–2010: 2008: European Court of Human Rights , Kononov versus Latvia: judgment [E][F] ♦ 2010 European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Kononov versus Latvia [E] ♦ [Subject: War crime in 1944; “No punishment without law”]
2014: European Court of Human Rights, Larionovs & Tess versus Latvia: decision [E] ♦ [Subject: retroactive application of criminal law in connection with acts during the 1949 deportation]
LEBANON
See United States 2003 (Kerr).
LIBERIA
See Sierra Leone.
LITHUANIA
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Sidabras & Džiautas versus Lithuania: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Ban for former KGB employees from certain jobs]
2008: European Court of Human Rights, Balsytė-Lideikienė versus Lithuania: judgment [F]; summary: [E] ♦ [Subject: Confiscation of historical publication promoting ethnic hatred]
2015: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Vasiliauskas versus Lithuania: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Conviction for genocide and nonretroactivity of criminal law]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Sidabras & Others versus Lithuania: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Ban for former KGB employees from certain jobs]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, Petkevičiūtė versus Lithuania: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation]
2019: European Court of Human Rights, Drelingas versus Lithuania: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Genocide definition]
MACEDONIA, NORTH
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Association of Citizens Radko & Paunkovski versus FYROM: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: dissolution of a cultural-historical association for negating the ethnic identity of the Macedonian people]
2012: European Court of Human Rights [Grand Chamber], El Masri versus FYROM: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Disappearance; right to the truth]
See also Bulgaria, Greece 1998, 2015.
MALAYSIA
See United States 1994 (Kamal Bamadhaj).
MALI
2016-2017: International Criminal Court, Prosecutor versus Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi: summary [E] ♦ judgment (2016) [A][E][F] ♦ reparations order (2017) [A][E][F] ♦ [Subject: Intentional destruction of cultural heritage; iconoclasm]
MALTA
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Mizzi versus Malta: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation]
MAURITANIA
See France 2009.
MOLDOVA
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Manole et al. versus Moldova: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Censorship of television and radio station regarding historical items]
2010: European Court of Human Rights, Petrenco versus Moldova: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Former historian defamed by historian]
MONTENEGRO
2005-2008: International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor versus Pavle Strugar judgment [E]; appeal [E]; summary of appeal [E] ♦ [Subject: Destruction of cultural monuments and world heritage in Dubrovnik]
See also: Bosnia-Herzegovina 2007.
MOROCCO
See Western Sahara.
NAMIBIA
2018: US District Court (Southern District of New YorkVekui Rukoro (Ovaherero people), Johannes Isaack (Nama people) and others versus Federal Republic of Germany: announcement [E]; McCallion declaration [E]; Motion for Lockman declaration [E]; Lockman declaration [E] ♦ Amended Class Action Complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: 1904-1908 genocide of Herero and Nama]
2023: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Lack of participation of Herero and Nama in talks about reparations for 1904–1980 genocide]
See also Germany 2023.
NETHERLANDS
1978: Gerechtshof Leeuwarden, amateur archaeologist Tjerk Vermaning versus professional archaeologist Dict Stapert: Judgment [D]; summary [D] ♦ [Subject: Authenticy of prehistoric objects]
1994: Gerechtshof 's Gravenhage, Siegfried Verbeke versus CIDI c.s. [appeal] [D] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
1994-1995: Arrondissementsrechtbank Groningen, Case Boomsma [D] and Case Schaafsma [D] ♦ Gerechtshof Leeuwarden, Case Boomsma (appeal) [D] and Case Schaafsma (appeal) [D] ♦ [Subject: Novelist drawing defamatory historical parallels in interview]
1998: European Commission of Human Rights, Middelburg & Van der Zee versus Netherlands [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2000: Rechtbank 's Gravenhage, 29 World War II veterans & others versus Ministry of Defense & Herman Amersfoort & Piet Kamphuis (two military historians) [D] ♦ [Subject: Defamation; Posthumous defamation]
2001: Rechtbank Arnhem, 10 ten family members of W. Van de Langemheen versus historian Madelon de Keizer [D] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2002: Raad van State, Turkish-Islamitic Cultural Association Assen versus Mayor & Aldermen of Assen [D] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide memorial on cemetery]
2003: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Eiseres versus Stichting Digitaal Monument Joodse Gemeenschap in Nederland en gedaagde [D] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
2004-2005: Raad van State (Council of State) (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak), Hoger beroep van dr. H. Brinks [D]; European Court of Human Rights, Brinks versus The Netherlands (admissibility of application) [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to personal data in internal security service archive]
2006: Raad van State (Council of State) (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak), Hoger beroep van dr. L.J. Giebels [D] ♦ [Subject: Archival access]
2008: Raad van State (Council of State), Advice W05.08.0440/I [D] ♦ [Subject: Obligatory use of the history canon in secundary education]
2008-: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Eiser versus Royal Tropical Institute (2008) [D] ♦ Appeal: (2009) [D] ♦ [Subject: Free expression about history in exhibit about Israeli-Palestinian conflict]
2008: Rechtbank Dordrecht, Stichting De Grote Rivieren versus Minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport [D] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
2009: Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, Marcel Metze versus Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van verkeer en waterstaat) [D] ♦ [Subject: Copyright of commissioned history]
2010: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X versus Eindhovens Dagblad [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2010: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X versus Volkskrant newspaper [D] ♦ [Subject: Internet archives; right to be forgotten]
2010: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Nina Storms [aka Nina Brink] versus Eric Smit & Prometheus Publishers [D] ♦ [Subject: Unauthorized biography]
2011: Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, Roel van Duijn versus Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties) [D] ♦ [Subject: Access to secret service files kept on him]
2011: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Van Maasdijk versus Cees Fasseur & Arbeiderspers, Archipel, Balans: Subpoena (14 June 2010) [D]; Judgment (23 March 2011) [D] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation; Invasion of privacy]
2011: Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, X [9 citizens from Balongsari] & Comité Nederlandse Ereschulden versus Staat der Nederlanden (14 September 2011) [D] ♦ [Subject: Colonial mass murder in Rawagedeh, Indonesia, in December 1947; reparation).
2012: Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, X versus het college van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (22 February 2012) [D] ♦ [Subject: Access to archival records]
2012: Rechtbank Zutphen, Federatief Joods Nederland versus Gemeente Bronckhorst [D] ♦ [Subject: Controversial commemoration]
2012: Rechtbank Haarlem, Jan de Roos versus Minister of Security and Justice: summary [D]; judgment [D] ♦ [Subject: Access to legal records about war criminal]
2012: Rechtbank Groningen, X versus Stichting Universiteitsblad Groningen [D] ♦ [Subject: Erasure of data from internet archives; Right to be forgotten]
2013: Hoge Raad (Supreme Court), review of 1950 judgment on objectors to military service in Indonesia [D] ♦ [Subject: Objectors to military service in colonial Indonesia; reparation]
2013: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Nederlandse Loodsencooperatie versus Martijn van Oorschot [D] ♦ [Subject: Copyright of commissioned history]
2014: Raad van State, X versus Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations [D] ♦ [Subject: Information request about 1950 Failed anti-Sukarno coup]
2014: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten in case of 2012 crime - European Court of Justice relevance standard]
2014: Rechtbank den Haag, Stichting Lira & Stichting Pictoright versus Gemeente Leiden [D] ♦ [Subject: Copyright and news archives]
2014: Rechtbank den Haag, Mothers of Srebrenice versus the State [D] ♦ [Subject: Reparation for survivors of 1995 Srebrenica genocide]
2015: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2015: Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, X versus Vereniging voor vrijheid, respect en solidariteit, Vereniging ouders van een vermoord kind, Stichting aandacht doet spreken [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2015: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2015: Rechtbank Den Haag, X [deceased 2014] versus The Netherlands [D] ♦ [Subject:compensation to Indonesian widow of man executed on Java in 1949; no statute of limitations]
2015: Rechtbank Den Haag, Komite Utang Kehormatan Belanda and Others versus The Netherlands [D] ♦ [Subject: compensation to relatives of executed persons in South Sulawesi in 1946-1947; no statute of limitations]
2016: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Tavrida Central Museum & three other Crimea museums & Ukraine versus University of Amsterdam [D]; 2021: Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Tavrida Central Museum & three other Crimea museums versus Ukraine & University of Amsterdam: appeal judgment [D] [Subject: Ownership of exhibition after 2014 annexation of Crimea]
2016: Rechtbank Rotterdam, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2016: Rechtbank Den Haag, X versus The Netherlands: torture [D], rape [D] ♦ [Subject: compensation to Indonesian widow for torture and rape on Java in 1949; no statute of limitations]
2016: Rechtbank Limburg, Petermann case [D] ♦ [Subject: aberrant parallel with Nazism during World War II]
2016: Rechtbank Overijssel, X versus Stichting Carmel College: summary proceedings 1 [D] and 2 [D] ♦ [Subject: Dismissal of history teacher with neo-Nazi sympathies]
2016-2019: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Stichting Onderzoek Oorlogsmisdaden (Foundation Research War Crimes) versus National Archives, 2016 [D]; 2018 [D]; Council of State judgment: 2019 [D] ♦ [Subject: Access to Centraal Archief Bijzondere Rechtspleging (CABR; Central Archives for Special Criminal Jurisdiction)
2017: Rechtbank Limburg, X1, X2, X3 versus X [D] ♦ [Subject: Family conflict over father's ashes]
2017: Rechtbank Den Haag, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2017: Rechtbank Overijssel, X versus Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2017: Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2017: Hoge Raad, X versus Google Netherlands & Google Inc. [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2018: Rechtbank Amsterdam, X Versus Google LLC [D] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten; delisting]
2019: University of Groningen Commission for Scientific Integrity: B. Droog versus A. van Liempt: advice [D]; decision [D]; 2020: Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI): advice [D] ♦ [Subject: Unfounded accusation of plagiarism by historian]
2019: Gerechtshof Den Haag, State versus relatives of executed and tortured victims in Indonesian independence struggle, 1945-1949: judgment 1 [D], judgment 2 [D] ♦ [Subject: Compensation for executions and torture]
2019–2023: Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI): advice [D] ♦ 2023: Rechtbank Gelderland, X versus Wageningen University: judgment [D] [Subject: Data manipulation by economic historian]
2021: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Stichting Federatie Indische Nederlanders versus New Ams Films Company: summary proceedings [D] ♦ [Subject: Film "De Oost" and its version of Dutch atrocities in Indonesia in 1946-1947]
2021: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Centraal Joods Overleg, CIDI and others versus Thierry Baudet [D] ♦ [Subject: Offending comparisons between unvaccinated and Holocaust victims]
2021: Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI): advice [D] ♦ [Subject: University of Amsterdam historian accused of breach of integrity for alleged falsification of data in a 2012 historical journal article]
2021: Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI): advice [D] ♦ [Subject: Peer review of manuscript of University of Leiden legal scholar in historical journal]
2022: Public Prosecutor (Amsterdam), Dismissal of complaint by Federation of Dutch-Indonesians [D]; Dismissal of complaint by Foundation Dutch Debt of Honor Committee [D] ♦ [Subject:complaints of group defamation toward Dutch-Indonesians and Indonesians respectively for use of the term "Bersiap" in exhibition]
NEPAL
2013: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Sedhai versus Nepal: Views [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearance during armed conflict of 1996-2006; right to the truth; state duty to investigate]
2014: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Bhandari versus Nepal: Views [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearance during armed conflict of 1996-2006; right to the truth; state duty to investigate]
2014: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Basnet versus Nepal: Views [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearance during armed conflict of 1996-2006; right to the truth; state duty to investigate]
NEW ZEALAND
2000: Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, David Lange versus Joe Atkinson (& Australian Consolidated Press, publisher of North and South) [E] ♦ [Subject: defamation]
See also Australia 1997.
NIGERIA
2023: Supreme Court of Nigeria, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu versus Attorney General: Amicus Curiae Brief [E] ♦ [Subject: Blasphemy charge because singer, sentenced to death, allegedly put cleric above Prophet Muhammad].
NORWAY
2009: Supreme Court, A versus B: summary [E / Norwegian] ♦ [Subject: local history book and privacy]
PAKISTAN
1973: International Court of Justice, Case concerning Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan versus India) [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Genocidal character of crimes in Bangladesh in 1971]
2018: Supreme Court of Pakistan, Asia Bibi versus the State: jugdment [E] ♦ [Subject: Blasphemy case with many historical references]
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
See Israel 2002, Netherlands 2008.
PERU
2006: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of La Cantuta versus Perú [E][S] ♦ [Subject: The crying eye (Ojo que llora) memorial]
2006: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Miguel Castro-Castro prison versus Perú [E] ♦ [Subject: Commemorative plaque]
PHILIPPINES
2023: United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Alonzo et al. versus Philippines: Views concerning Communication No. 155/2020 (UN Doc. CEDAW/C/84/D/155/2020) (3 March 2023) [E] ♦ [Subject: Failure to redress continuous discrimination of sexual slavery victims perpetrated by Imperial Japanese Army]
POLAND
2001: European Court of Human Rights: Kurzac versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Unfair trial under the 1991 law on the annulment of a 1948 conviction for activities aimed at achieving Polish independence; reparation]
2002: European Court of Human Rights: Płoski versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Right to mourn]
2004: European Court of Human Rights: Pieniążek versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Duration of defamation proceedings]
2005: European Court of Human Rights: Broniowski versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Claims for compensation for property forcibly abandoned between 1944 and 1953]
2007-2014: European Court of Human Rights: Hösl-Daum et al. versus Poland: Statement of Facts [E] Admissibility [E] ♦ [Subject: Postwar expulsion of Germans; insulting Polish nation; hate speech]
2011: European Court of Human Rights: Potomska and Potomski versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Jewish cemetery as heritage]
2012: European Court of Human Rights: Szulc versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: No access to personal file held by held by the Institute of National Remembranceuntil after 10 years]
2013: European Court of Human Rights: Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: Internet archives; Right to be forgotten]
2013: European Court of Human Rights: Smolorz versus Poland: judgment [F]; summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Journalist convicted for criticizing Communist-era architect; historical debate; defamation]
2014: European Court of Human Rights: Braun versus Poland [E] ♦ [Subject: film director and historian charged with defamation]
See also Russia 2011-2012 (Katyń).
PORTUGAL
2015: European Court of Human Rights: Pinto Pinheiro Marques versus Portugal [F] ♦ [Subject: complaint of historian and chairman of cultural association about conviction for defamation]
QATAR
See United States 2006.
ROMANIA
2000: European Court of Human Rights, Rotaru versus Romania [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Preservation of archival information; Content of closed archives]
2002: European Court of Human Rights, Stănescu & Ardeleanu versus Romania [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Şandru & Others versus Romania [F] [Subject: State obligation to investigate crimes committed in 1989]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Petrina versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: Politician accused of having been a Securitate agent; defamation and privacy invasion]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Haralambie versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: Access to personal archival file of security service]
2010: European Court of Human Rights, Andreescu versus Romania: Judgment [F]; Summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to Securitate archives (CNSAS); Defamation]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Association 21 December 1989 Bucarest & Teodor Mărieş & Marin Stoica versus Romania [F] [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to archival files relating to Ceausescu’s overthrow; right to the truth]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Jarnea versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: No access to part of a personal file held by Securitate.]
2013: European Court of Human Rights, Acanitrei versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: State obligation to investigate crimes committed in 1989]
2013: European Court of Human Rights, Tudor versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: No access to deceased father’s file held by Securitate until after 10 years.]
2016: European Court of Human Rights, Apostol & Others versus Romania [E] ♦ [Subject: State obligation to investigate crimes committed in 1989; right to life]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, Catalan versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: Dismissal of employee of National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives for disclosing confidential information]
2020: European Court of Human Rights, Gafiuc versus Romania [F] ♦ [Subject: Access to search Securitate archives withdrawn because applicant published personal data of others]
2022: High Court of Cassation and Justice, Antohi versus Consiliul Național pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securității (CNSAS; National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives) [Romanian] ♦ [Subject: Historian wins case against CNSAS allegations]
2024: European Court of Human Rights, Zăicescu & Fălticineanu versus Romania: Judgment [E]; Summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Right to privacy of two Holocaust survivors violated upon learning with delay of the acquittal of two high-ranking military officials previously convicted of Holocaust-related crimes in proceedings not disclosed to the public]
RUSSIA
2001– ♦ 2001: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Igor Sutyagin versus Russia [E] ♦ 2007: Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “Resolution 1551” [E] ♦ 2011: European Court of Human Rights, Sutyagin versus Russia [E] ♦ [Subject: Arbitrary detention of historian]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Vatan versus Russia: admissibility decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Legal decision to dissolve a historical association of the political party Vatan]
2011: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 26 January 2011 [R] ♦ [Subject: Challenge by Memorial of 2006 Order (paragraph 9) on restricting access to files of rehabilitated persons]
2011–2013: European Court of Human Rights, Janowiec et al. versus Russia: admissibility (2011) [E]; summary of judgment (2102) [E]; judgment [E]; Grand chamber judgment (press release) (2013) [E]; judgment (2013) [E]; Public International Law & Policy Group, Victim Recognition and Satisfaction of Reparations: Third Party Intervention in Janowiec et al. v. Russia (2012) [E] ♦ [Subject: Treatment of relatives of 1940 war crime victims in Katyń; state duty to investigate]
2012–2024: European Court of Human Rights, Suprun versus Russia: application (2012) [E]; application with covering letter [E]; list of cases [E]; amicus curiae report [E]; judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Prevention from collecting and disseminating historical information on victims of Soviet repression; privacy; right to the truth.]
2015: Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Constitutional Court of Russia, Judgment of 17 February 2015 [R] ♦ [Subject: International Memorial and Human Rights Center Memorial subjected to arbitrary inspections]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Dzhugashvili versus Russia: decision [E]; press release [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy invasion and defamation of public figure (Stalin)]
2015: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Yusupova versus Russia: communication [E] ♦ [Subject: Woman forcibly deported from Chechnya to Kazakhstan in 1944 and denied compensation]
2016-2017: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Appeal judgment of 1 September 2016, Case Luzgin [E] ♦ European Court of Human Rights, Luzgin versus Russia: subject matter [E] ♦ [Subject: Denial of the facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal and spreading false information about actions of the USSR in World War II]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Dmitrievsky versus Russia [E] ♦ [Subject: Seeking historical truth and conducting a historical debate about crimes as part of free expression]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Orlov & others versus Russia: judgment (2017) [E] ♦ [Subject: Application against ill-treatment of historian Oleg Orlov & others]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Rafis Kashapov versus Russia: Subject matter of the case [E] ♦ [Subject: Tatar activist describing the “so-called Tatar-Mongolian yoke” (Mongol invasion of Russia in the 13th century) as a “State lie”]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Ecodefence and others versus Russia: Statement of facts [E] ♦ [Subject: Foreign Agents Act and its repercussion for Perm-36, Human Rights Center Memorial, IEC Memorial, KPK Memorial, Yekaterinburg Memorial, International Memorial, ADC Memorial]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, Levada Center versus Russia: Subject matter of the cases [E] ♦ [Subject: Foreign Agents Act and its repercussion for Ryazan Memorial]
2018: European Court of Human Rights, Mikhail Kasimov versus Russia: Subject matter of the cases [E] ♦ [Subject: Legal redress concerning swastika display cases]
2019–2024: European Court of Human Rights, Dupuy versus Russia: see Suprun versus Russia.
2019: Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 10 December 2019 [R] ♦ [Subject: Social housing for World War II veterans]
2019: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Cassation decision of 5 July 2019 in the case of Georgiy Shakhet [R] ♦ [Subject: Access to files of non-rehabilitated persons]
2019: United Nations Human Rights Committee, K.K. & Others versus Russia: inadmissibility decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Secret executions of war prisoners during 1940 Katyń Massacre]
2020: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding NGO Memorial, among others [E] ♦ [Subject: Raids, seizures of property, prosecution, dissolution and interdiction of Memorial]
2020: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding victims of political repression of the Soviet era [E] ♦ [Subject: Victims of political repression of the Soviet era in respect of access to adequate housing and their right to a prompt and effective remedy]
2020: European Court of Human Rights, Rashkin versus Russia: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Complaint of defamation for an accusation of having committed "crimes against the Russian nation]
2021–2024: European Court of Human Rights, Kulakova versus Russia: see Suprun versus Russia.
2021–2024: European Court of Human Rights, Prudovskiy versus Russia: see Suprun versus Russia.
2021: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding Yuri Dmitriev [E] ♦ [Subject: Case of imprisoned historian]
2021: European Court of Human Rights, Karatayev versus Russia: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Display as swastika as cultural versus Nazi symbol]
2021: European Court of Human Rights, Estemirova versus Russia: statement of facts (2016) [E]; judgment (2021) [E] ♦ [Subject: Murder of historian Natalia Estemirova]
2021–2022: Moscow City Court, Moscow Prosecutor’s Office versus Memorial (November 2021): [R] and [R]; Supreme Court, judgment ordering the liquidation (December 2021): [R]; Memorial's appeal (January 2022): [R]; Statement Prosecutor General (February 2022) [R]; Supreme Court, rejection of Memorial's appeal (summary) (February 2022) [R] [E] ♦ [Subject: Liquidation of Memorial for failing to comply with “Foreign Agent” law and for “justification of terrorism and extremism.”]
See also: Netherlands 2016 and 2021.
2022–2024: European Court of Human Rights, International Memorial versus Russia: see Suprun versus Russia.
2023: Moscow City Court, Case Orlov: Submission of Prosecutor's Office [R] ♦ [Subject: Charge of repeatedly discrediting the Russian army against historian Oleg Orlov]
2023: UN Special Rapporteurs Allegations Letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Search of homes and offices of members of Memorial; criminalization of historian Oleg Orlov]
See also Georgia 2021–2023.
RWANDA
1998: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor versus Akayesu: Decision about historian as expert witness [E]; judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: First conviction for genocide]
2003: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor versus Nahimana et al. [E]; appeal 2007 [E] ♦ [Subject: Historian convicted for inciting genocide]
2004: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor versus Simba: Decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Historian as expert witness]
2005: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor versus Bizimungu et al.: Decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Historian as expert witness]
2017: African Court on Human & Peoples' Rights, Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza versus Rwanda: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Wrong conviction for denial of 1994 genocide]
2019: African Commission on Human & Peoples' Rights, Uwimana-Nkusi & Mukakibibi versus Rwanda [E] ♦ [Subject: Wrong conviction for denial of 1994 genocide]
See also France 2017.
SENEGAL
2009: International Court of Justice, Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite: Belgium versus Senegal [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Trial of former Chadian President Hissène Habré for past human rights violations]
SERBIA
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Bodrožić versus Serbia [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation of historian]
2014: UN Special Rapporteurs Allegations Letter [E] ♦ [Subject: attacks NGO Women in Black; those commemorating war crimes harassed]
See also Bosnia-Herzegovina 2007.
SIERRA LEONE
2007: Special Court for Sierra Leone: Prosecutor versus Taylor [E] ♦ [Subject: Decision about historian as expert witness]
SINGAPORE
2014: Films Appeals Committee Upholds Decision Regarding Film To Singapore, with Love: Press Statement [E] ♦ [Subject: film ban]
SLOVAKIA
2001: European Court of Human Rights, Feldek versus Slovakia [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Hrico versus Slovakia [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Turek versus Slovakia [E] ♦ [Subject: Access to archival information]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, L.Z. versus Slovakia [E] ♦ [Subject: Naming of street after public figure (wartime leader Jozef Tiso) affiliated to the Nazis]
See also Hungary 2012
SLOVENIA
2009: European Court of Human Rights [Grand Chamber], Silih versus Slovenia: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: jurisdiction ratione temporis]
2012: European Court of Human Rights [Grand Chamber], Kurić et al. versus Slovenia: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: The Erased]
2014: European Court of Human Rights, Jelševar versus Slovenia [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation and privacy invasion]
SOUTH AFRICA
2002: Constitutional Court of South Africa, Islamic Unity Convention versus Independent Broadcasting Authority, South African Jewish Board of Deputies, Minister of Communications [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial]
2002: Hight Court of South Africa, Khulumani Support Group, Shirley Renee Gunn, etc. versus Desmond Tutu, Truth and Reconciliation Commission , Minister of Justice, President of South Africa: affidavit of first applicant [E] ♦ [Subject: Truth commission]
2008: High Court of South Africa (Transvaal Provincial Division), Thembisile Phumelele Nkadimeng et al. versus National Director of Public Prosecutions et al.: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearances; Conflicts of the past]
2015: Eastern Cape High Court, Premier of the Eastern Cape & Others versus Ntamo & Others [E] ♦ [Subject: Evidence of historian crucial in customary law case]
2020: Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa: South African History Archive Trust versus South African Reserve Bank [E] ♦ [Subject: Refusal by bank of request for information related to individuals suspected of Apartheid-era economic crime.]
See also United States 2009
SPAIN
2003: European Court of Human Rights, Cañete de Goñi versus Spain [E] ♦ [Subject: Non-appointment of history teacher; fair trial].
2004: Tribunal Constitucional de España, Descendants of Carlos Trias Bertrán versus Dolors Genovés Morales [S] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation]
2007: Tribunal Constitucional de España, José Fortes Bouzán versus Francisco Javier Sánchez de Dios & Valentín Carmelo Rodríguez Fernández [S] ♦ [Subject: Plagiarism]
2007: Tribunal Constitucional de España [E][S] ♦ [Subject: Constitutionality of penal code article regarding denial and justification of genocide]
2008-2012: Audiencia Nacional, Diligencias previas proc. abreviado 399 /2006 [S]; Sumario (proc. ordinario) 53/2008 E [S]; Tribunal Supremo, Manos limpias versus Baltasar Garzón: judgment [S] ♦ 2021: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Garzón versus Spain: Views [S] [Subject: Judge Baltasar Garzón’s investigation into crimes against humanity, enforced disappearances under General Franco; right to the truth]
2011: Tribunal Supremo, Sentence no. 259 (caso Librería Kalki) [S] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic literature]
2013: European Court of Human Rights, Varela Geis versus Spain [F][S] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of ideas or doctrines justifying acts of genocide]
2013-2014: Court of Justice of the European Union, Advocate General’s Opinion in Case Google Spain, Google Inc. versus Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González Press release: [E]; full text of opinion: [E]; judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) [E] ♦ [Subject: Right to be forgotten]
2019: Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), Oriol Junqueras Vies [E] ♦ [Subject: Release from prison and parliamentary immunity for Catalan historian and politician as an elected member of European Parliament]
2020: United Nations Human Rights Committee, F.A.J. & B.M.R.A. versus Spain: inadmissibility decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforced disappearance during the Civil War in 1936]
2021: European Court of Human Rights, Almandoz versus Spain [E][F][S] ♦ [Subject: No incitement to terrorism during ceremony in memory of former ETA member]
SRI LANKA
2024: UN Special Rapporteurs Allegations Letter [E] ♦ [Subject: Arrest of Tamils commemorating Maaveerar Naal (Heroes’ Day)]
SWEDEN
1988: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Kitok versus Sweden [E] ♦ [Subject: Historical rights of Sami indigenous people; Minority rights]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Sugg & Dobbs versus Sweden [E] ♦ [Subject: Totalitarian symbols]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others versus Sweden [E] ♦ [Subject: No access to personal information held by security police for national security or crime prevention reasons]
SWITZERLAND
1985: Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, Robert Eibel versus Jürg Frischknecht et. al. [G] ♦ [Subject: No right to forget]
2001: Schweizerischen Bundesgericht, Willi Wottreng versus Präsident des Obergerichts des Kantons Zürich [G] ♦ Case summary [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
2002: Schaffhauser Obergericht, X versus Christoph Schlatter ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy] [G]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Monnat versus Switzerland [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Television documentary about wartime economic collaboration]
2006: European Court of Human Rights, Jäggi versus Switzerland [E] ♦ [Subject: Duration of right to rest in peace; right to privacy in relation to obtaining a DNA paternity test on human remains]
2007-2015: Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne, Cas de Dogu Perinçek [F] ♦ Tribunal féderal suisse, Cas de Perinçek [F] ♦ European Court of Human Rights, Cas de Perinçek: Exposé des faits (2010) [F] Judgment (2013): summary [E], full text [F] ♦ International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), Third-party report (2014) [F] ♦ European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) (2015), Case of Perinçek v. Switzerland: Judgment [E]; press release [E]; q&a [E] ♦ [Subject: Racial discrimination; denial Armenian genocide]
2007: European Court of Human Rights, Stoll versus Switzerland [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Publication of confidential report about Swiss strategy concerning compensation due to Holocaust victims.]
2008: European Court of Human Rights, Hadri-Vionnet versus Switzerland [F] ♦ [Subject: Funeral attendance.]
2010: Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, XYZ versus Oberstaatsanwaltschaft des Kantons Zürich [G] ♦ [Subject: Denial Armenian genocide]
2017: European Court of Human Rights, Mercan versus Switzerland: Judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Racial discrimination; denial Armenian genocide]
TAIWAN
See United States 1989.
THAILAND
See Cambodia 1962 and 2013.
TIMOR-LESTE
See Australia 2014.
TURKEY
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Çakici versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Çakici criteria to determine whether family members of forcibly disappeared persons are victims of inhuman or degrading treatment.]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Arslan versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Polat versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Okçuoglu versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Karataş versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
1999: European Court of Human Rights, Öztürk versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
2000: European Court of Human Rights, Baskaya & Okçuoglu versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Dissemination of separatist propaganda]
2000: European Court of Human Rights, Özgür Gündem versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Confiscation of newspaper archives]
2003: European Communities (Court of First Instance) Krikorian, Krikorian, Euro-Arménie versus European Parliament, EU Council, and EU Commission (Case T-346/03) [E][F][S] ♦ [Subject: Recognition of Turkey’s status as EU member candidate despite its refusal to acknowledge the 1915 genocide against the Armenians]
2004: European Court of Human Rights, Odabaşı & Koçak versus Turkey [F] ♦ [Subject: Offences against Atatürk law]
2005: Murder of Hrant Dink: Opinion of the attorney [E]; one year later [E]; two years later [E]; three years later [E]; four years later [E]; European Court of Human Rights, Adali versus Turkey [E] ♦ [Subject: Assassination of journalist for article about alleged official involvement in Northern Cyprus in smuggling historical artifacts]
2007–2010: European Court of Human Rights, Dink versus Turkey: Press Release / Summary: [E] Judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Right to life & freedom of expression of journalist writing about historical issues]
2007: European Court of Human Rights, Akpinar & Altun versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Desacration/mutilation of corpse; definition of human being]
2008: European Court of Human Rights, Demirel & Ateş (no. 3) versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Article by PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan about the origins of the PKK in response to historian Taner Akçam]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Varnava versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Disappearances in Cyprus in 1974; reparation]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Güçlü versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Kozacıoğlu versus Turkey: Grand Chamber Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Failure to take historical value of a building into account when assessing compensation for its expropriation]
2010: European Court of Human Rights, Cox versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide]
2011: European Court of Human Rights, Akçam versus Turkey: Statement of Facts (2008) [E] ♦ Press release / summary (2011) [E][F] ♦ Judgment (2011) [E] ♦ [Subject: Freedom of expression of historian; reopening criminal proceedings]
2012: European Court of Human Rights, Yildirim versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: blocking of website under 1951 offences against Atatürk law]
2012: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Aksu versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamatory character of history book about Roma]
2014: European Court of Human Rights, Dilipak & Karakaya versus Turkey: Press Release / Summary: [E] Judgment [F] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous defamation of army general]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Cengiz versus Turkey: Judgment [F] ♦ Summary [E] [Subject: blocking of video-sharing website YouTube under 1951 offences against Atatürk law]
2015: European Court of Human Rights, Vural versus Turkey: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: offences against Atatürk law]
2019: United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding violations attributable to Turkey in relation to the tragic events that affected the Armenian minority from 1915 to 1923, and their consequences for the population concerned [E] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide]
See also Cyprus 2014; Switzerland 2007, 2010, 2017.
UKRAINE
2010: Kyiv Court of Appeal, Ukraine versus Stalin and others [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous trial over genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933]
2013: European Court of Human Rights: Putistin versus Ukraine: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous reputation as part of privacy of the surviving relatives; posthumous defamation]
2018: European Court of Human Rights: Sinkova versus Ukraine: Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Desecration of monument/war memorial during performance-art protest]
See also: Netherlands 2016 and 2021.
UNITED KINGDOM
1972: House of Lords, Cassell & [David Irving] versus Broome [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
1991: European Court of Human Rights, Observer & Guardian versus United Kingdom [E] ♦ [Subject: Publication of memoirs of former member of intelligence services]
1995: European Court of Human Rights, Tolstoy versus United Kingdom [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
1996: European Court of Human Rights, Goodwin versus United Kingdom [E] ♦ [Subject: Nondisclosure of sources]
1999: House of Lords, Albert Reynolds versus Times Newspapers et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Defamation]
2000: High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, David Irving versus Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt [E]; appeal 2001[E]; complete transcripts [E] ♦ [Subject: Holocaust denial, falsification of history, defamation]
2009: European Court of Human Rights, Times Newspapers versus United Kingdom; press release [E]; judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Integrity of a newspaper's Internet archive]
2015: First-Tier (London), Barry Keane versus Information Commissioner et al.: appeal [E] ♦ [Subject: Irish historian, denied access to police records with names of informants who worked against Irish secret societies in 1892-1910]
2019: Information Commissioner's Office: Freedom of Information Act 2000, Decision notice [E]; Information notice [E] ♦ [Subject: Archive with papers from Lord and Lady Mountbatten]
2021: Central Criminal Court, The Queen versus Khairi Saadallah: Sentencing remarks [E] ♦ [Subject: Assassination of history teacher James Furlong for terrorist reasons]
2021:United Nations Mandates, Allegations letter regarding human rights violations during the precolonial and colonial period in Western Kenya [E] ♦ [Subject: Land expropriation, unlawful killings, sexual violence]
2021: High Court of Justice, Roman Abramovich versus HarperCollins and Catherine Belton [E] ♦ [Subject: defamation in work of contemporary history]
2021: High Court of Justice, Rosneft Oil Company versus HarperCollins and Catherine Belton [E] ♦ [Subject: defamation in work of contemporary history]
See also United States 2011.
UNITED STATES
1895: Court of Appeals, Schuyler versus Curtis et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
1957: Supreme Court, Sweezy versus New Hampshire [E] ♦ [Subject: Landmark academic freedom case involving economic historian]
1967: Supreme Court, Keyishian versus Board of Regents [E] ♦ [Subject: Academic freedom in public institutions as a special concern of the First Amendment]
1968: Supreme Court, Epperson versus Arkansas [E] ♦ [Subject: Constitutionality of anti-evolution statute; evolutionism versus creationism]
1971: Supreme Court, New York Times versus USA [E] ♦ [Subject: Publication of Pentagon Papers (a top-secret history of USA involvement in Indo-China from 1945 to 1968) balanced against national security]
1979: District Court (Arkansas), Cooper versus Ross: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: non-reappointment of history professor because of his Marxist convictions]
1980: District Court (Mississippi), Loewen et al. versus Turnispeed, Mississippi State Textbook Purchasing Board et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: History textbooks]
1981-1991: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Mermelstein versus Institute for Historical Review [and Mermelstein versus Legion for the Survival of Freedom]: judicial notice of the Holocaust (1981), judgment (1985), proceedings (1991) [E] ♦ [Subject: Existence of the Holocaust]
1983: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Johnson versus Stuart [E] ♦ [Subject: Oregon history textbooks]
1987: District Court (Alabama), Smith versus Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County [E]; Courts of Appeals (11th Circuit): Appeal [E] ♦ [Subject: Religion in history textbooks]
1988: Supreme Court, Lyng versus Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: burial rites and graves protection]
1988: Supreme Court of New York, Society Survivors Riga Ghetto versus Henry R. Huttenbach extract: [E] ♦ [Subject: Copyright of commissioned history]
1989: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Helen Liu (on behalf of the late Henry Liu) versus Republic of China [E] ♦ [Subject: Assassination of historian Henry Liu (biographer of C.K. Chiang)]
1994: District Court (Massachusetts), Helen Todd versus Sintong Panjaitan (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Default Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Killing of Malaysian history student Kamal Bamadhaj on Santa Cruz cemetery, Dili, East Timor, Indonesia]
2002-2004: District Court (Oregon), Bonnichsen versus USA: judgment [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Bonnichsen versus USA: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Ancient human remains ("Kennewick Man"); archaeology; NAGPRA]
2003: Court of Appeals, Schrecker versus US Department of Justice [E] Amici curiae brief [E] ♦ [Subject: Privacy in records]
2003: Court of Appeals (7th Circuit), Haynes versus Knopf [E] ♦ [Subject: Public disclosure of private facts]
2003: District Court (DC), Kerr versus Islamic Republic of Iran [E] ♦ [Subject: Assassination of historian Malcolm Kerr]
2004: Supreme Court, National Archives and Records Administration versus Favish et al. [E]; Petition for rehearing [E]; Opinion [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
2004: Supreme Court, Sosa versus Alvarez-Machain: syllabus [E] ♦ opinion (Souter) [E] ♦ concurrence (Scalia) [E] ♦ concurrence (Ginsburg) [E] ♦ concurrence (Breyer) [E] ♦ [Subject: Case in which the conditions were discussed under which the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789 was applicable]
2004: Supreme Court,Shafiq Rasul versus George W. Bush: Brief Amici Curiae of Legal Historians [E] ♦ [Subject: Habeas corpus]
2004: Supreme Court, City of Sherrill, New York versus Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al.: syllabus [E] ♦ opinion [E] ♦ concurring judge [E] ♦ dissenting judge [E] ♦ [Subject: Historic Indigenous Land Rights]
2006: Supreme Court, Garcetti et al. versus Ceballos [E] ♦ Brief of Amici Curiae by Th. Jefferson Center for Free Expression and American Association of University Professors [E] ♦ [Subject: No First Amendment free speech protection for government employees except for scholarship and teaching; academic freedom]
2006: Court in California, Hindu American Foundation et al. versus California State Board of Education et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Representation of India in history textbooks]
2006: Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), Brief of Amici Curiae U.S. Criminal Scholars and Historians Advocating Reversal in Support of Petitioners [E] ♦ [Subject: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri (Qatar) “enemy combatant” case]
2007: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Berman versus Central Intelligence Agency: Opinion [E] ♦ [Subject: acces to ten President’s Daily Briefs during the Vietnam war]
2007: District Court (Massachusetts), California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) versus Michael Witzel: subpoena of correspondence [E] ♦ [Subject: Representation of India in history textbooks]
2008: Court of Appeals (1st Circuit), California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) versus Michael Witzel: subpoena of correspondence - appeal [E] ♦ [Subject: Representation of India in history textbooks]
2008: Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), McVea versus Crisp: Opinion [E] ♦ [Subject: historian sued for defamation]
2008-2011: Court of Appeals, Phelps-Roper versus Strickland, Dann, Mason (2008) [E] ♦ 2011: Supreme Court, Snyder versus Phelps et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Respect for funeral attendees; defamation; privacy invasion; intentional infliction of emotional distress]
2009: District Court (California), California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) versus Kenneth Noonan et al., part I [E]; part II [E] ♦ [Subject: Representation of India in history textbooks]
2009: Circuit Court (7th Circuit), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Overruling Objections To Subpoena and for Protective Order Concerning Unpublished Manuscript [by Robert Proctor] [E] ♦ Overview of historians as expert witnesses in US tobacco cases: [E] [Subject: Access to historian's unpublished manuscript]
2009: District Court (New York), Sakwe Balintulo etc. versus Daimler AG etc., complaint: [E] ♦ [Subject: Class action under Alien Tort Claims Act against corporations supporting crimes of apartheid]
2009-2010: District Court (DC), Guenter Lewy versus Southern Poverty Law Center and David Holthouse: Complaint (2009) [E]; Memorandum Opinion (2010) [E] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide]
2010: Court of Appeals (1st Circuit), Griswold versus Driscoll [E] ♦ Earlier documents: amended complaint (2006) [E]; memo and order (2009) [E] ♦ [Subject: Armenian genocide education]
2010: District Court (DC), Anthony Shaffer versus Defense Intelligence Agency: complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: deletion of passages from memoir of intelligence officer in Afghanistan]
2011-2014: Website with legal records [E] ♦ 2011: District Court (Massachusetts), Motion of Trustees of Boston College to quash subpoenas [E] ♦ ACLU (Mass.), Motion for leave to file amicus brief [E] ♦ Affidavit Moloney [E] ♦ Affidavit McIntyre [E] ♦ Affidavit O'Neill [E] ♦ Affidavit Kuhn (oral historian) [E] ♦ Government opposition of motion to quash [E] ♦ Memo in reply of opposition [E] ♦ Second motion of Trustees of Boston College to quash subpoenas [E] ♦ Government opposition of second motion to quash [E] ♦ Motion for leave to intervene (Moloney & McIntyre) [E] ♦ Interveners' complaint (Moloney & McIntyre) [E] ♦ Ruling [E] ♦ 2012: American Sociological Association, Statement on protection of human subjects from subpoena of confidential Belfast Project research data [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (1st Circuit), Petitioner versus Trustees of Boston College, Brief of appellant trustees of Boston College [E] ♦ Reply brief of Boston College [E] ♦ Request from United Kingdom [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (1st Circuit), Moloney & McIntyre versus USA: appeal judgment [E] ♦ 2013: Court of Appeals (1st Circuit), Petitioner versus Trustees of Boston College, appeal judgment: [E] ♦ 2012-2013: Supreme Court, Moloney & McIntyre versus USA: Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for a writ of certiorari (denied) [E] ♦ 2014: Oral History Association, Response to developments in Boston College case [E] ♦ [Subject: Subpoena to obtain oral history interviews about political assassinations]
2011: Supreme Court, USA versus Antoine Jones: Brief of Amicus Curiae – Fourth Amendment Historians in Support of Respondent [E] ♦ [Subject: Historical interpretation of Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government)]
2011: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Fischer & Mendoza et al. versus Tucson Unified School District: government brief [Subject: Equal protection clause and history curricula] [E] ♦ jugdment [E] ♦ [Subject: Mexican American history curricula]
2011: District Court (DC), Stanley Kutler et al. petition [E] ♦ [Subject: Release of transcript of President Nixon’s Grand Jury testimony in 1975]
2011: District Court (DC), Geoffrey Shepard et al. petition [E] ♦ [Subject: Release of transcript of President Nixon’s Grand Jury testimony in 1975]
2012: Court of Appeals (New York), Harbatkin versus New York City Department of Records and Information Services [E] ♦ [Subject: Access of historian to unredacted interview transcripts]
2012: Supreme Court of Arkansas, Cannady (on behalf of Anne Pressly, deceased) versus St. James Infirmary Medical Center et al. [E] ♦ [Subject: Posthumous privacy]
2013-2015: District Court (Arizona), Acosta & Dominguez et. al. versus Huppenthal et al. [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Arce et al. versus Huppenthal, et al.: Amici Curiae Brief (on behalf of Chief Earl Warren institute on Law and Social Policy and Anti-Defamation League) [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), Arce et al. versus Douglas, et al.: judgment [E] [Subject: constitutionality of statute to limit race-related Mexican American history curricula]
2014: American Association of University Professors (Illinois Conference), Finding in the case of Iymen Chehade [E] ♦ [Subject: Violation of academic freedom of Middle East history lecturer]
2014: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Onondaga Nation and The Haudenosaunee versus the United States: Petition [E] ♦ [Subject: Historic Violations of Indigenous Land Rights]
2014-2015: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), White versus University of California: Judgment [E] ♦ Supreme Court of the United States, White, Bettinger and Schoeninger versus Regents of the University of California and Others: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [E] ♦ [Subject: La Jolla remains; archaeology; NAGPRA]
2015-2016: District Court (Illinois), Elliot Carlson et al. versus USA: judgment [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (7th Circuit), Elliot Carlson et al. versus USA: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Disclosure of Grand Jury testimony from the prosecution in 1942 of The Chicago Tribune]
2016-2017: District Court (Eastern District of Lousiana), Monumental Task Committee et al. versus Foxx et al.: motion for temporary restraining order [E] ♦ motion for partial summary judgment [E] ♦ motion for summary judgment [E] ♦ Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), Monumental Task Committee et al. versus Chao et al.: appeal [E] ♦ [Subject: Confederate monuments]
2017: Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), State of Hawaii versus Donald Trump: Amici Curiae Brief of Scholars of American Religious History & Law in Support of Neither Party [E] ♦ [Subject: historical parallels between treatment of Mormon immigrants in the 19th century and Muslim immigrants in 2017]
2017: District Court (DC), Cherokee Nation versus Nash et al.: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: anti-slavery clause in historical treaty (1866)]
2019: Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), Caleigh Wood versus Board of Education of Charles County and Others: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Teaching Islam in world history curriculum]
2019: Supreme Court of the United States, Herrera versus Wyoming: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Treaty Rights of Indigenous Peoples; 1868 treate between Crow Tribe and US Government]
2019: District Court (Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division), Hanover County Unit of the NAACP versus Hanover County and County School: complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: Schools commemorating Confederate leaders]
2019: District Court (DC), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and others versus Donald Trump and Executive Office of the President: Complaint [E]; Notice [E] judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: White House record-keeping & archives]
2019: District Court (DC), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and others versus Michael Pompeo and State Department: Complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: State Department record-keeping & archives]
2020: North Carolina Division Sons of Confederate Veterans versus University of North Carolina & UNC Board of Governors: Brief Amici Curiae UNC Alumni and Donors [E]; affidavit of historian Cecelia Moore [E]; letters of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1 [E] and 2 [E] ♦ [Subject: Confederate statue (nicknamed Silent Sam)]
2020: Tamara Lanier versus Harvard University: Complaint and Jury Demand [E] ♦ [Subject: Wrongful seizure, possession and expropriation of 1850 photographs of two enslaved people]
2020: Supreme Court of the United States, McGirt versus Oklahoma: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: 1833 treaty with Creek nation upheld]
2020: District Court (DC), NSA, SHAFR, AHA, CREW versus Donald Trump, Executive Office of the President, Jared Kushner, David Ferriero, NARA: Complaint [E]; Plaintiff's notice [E]; Notice of voluntary dismissal [E] ♦ [Subject: Enforcement of Presidential Records Act]
2020: District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma: Lessie Benningfield Randle, Tulsa massacre survivor, and Others versus City of Tulsa and Others: Petition [E] ♦ [Subject: Reparation for 1921 Tulsa massacre]
2021: District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Black Emergency Response Team, AAAP, NAACP, AIM and Others versus Oklahoma Attorney General and Others: Complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: Challenging ban an on critical race theory in public schools]
2021: District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lora Burnett versus Collin County Community College District: complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: First Amendment Rights extra muros of historian]
2021: District Court for the District of Columbia, Donald Trump versus Bennie Thompson: judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: access to archival records of former president]
2021: Superior Court of New Jersey in Mercer County, Xiyue Wang & Hua Qu versus Princeton University [E] ♦ [Subject: Charge for negligence during historical research and imprisonment in Iran]
2021: Supreme Court of the United States, Dobbs versus Jackson: Brief for Amici Curiae American Historical Association & Organization of American Historians [E] ♦ [Subject: abortion]
2021: District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garrett & Miller versus Kern Community College District, Complaint: Demand for Jury Trial [E] ♦ [Subject: Historians complain for alleged retaliation for excercising free speech]
2022–2023: US District Court Northern District of Florida, Talahassee Divison, Pernell and Others versus Florida Board of Governors of the State University System: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [E] ♦ Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions for Preliminary Injunction [E] ♦ Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Pernell and Others versus Lamb and Others: Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees [E] ♦ Brief by amici curiae historians Khalid & Snyder [E] [Subject: Individual Freedom Act (aka Stop Woke Act); academic freedom in public universities; Critical Race Theory]
2022: District Court Northern District of Florida, Talahassee Divison, Robert Cassanello and Others versus Ron Desantis and Others: Complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: Individual Freedom Act (aka Stop Woke Act); academic freedom in public universities; Critical Race Theory]
2022: District Court for the District of Columbia, National Security Archive versus Central Intelligence Agency [E] ♦ [Subject: Reclassification of memo already published in Foreign Relations of the United States]
2022–2023: Supreme Court of the United States, Haaland versus Brackeen and other cases: amicus curiae brief of American Historical Association & Organization of American Historians in support of Federal and Tribal Parties [E] ♦ Judgment [E] ♦ [Subject: Historical perspective on the Indian Child Welfare Act]
2023: District Court for Southern District of Florida, Donald Trump versus CNN [E] ♦ [Subject: Alleged defamation for comparison to Hitler and the Nazi regime]
2024: District Court for Southern District of Florida, United States versus Donald Trump and others [E] ♦ [Subject: Classified records case dismissed]
2024: District Court for District of Columbia, National Security Archive versus National Archives and Records Administration: Complaint [E] ♦ [Subject: 12-year freedom of information backlog for presidential archives]
See also India 2010; Turkey 2010; Namibia 2018.
URUGUAY
1981: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Landinelli Silva versus Uruguay [E] ♦ [Subject: Derogation of political rights of historian]
1983: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros versus Uruguay: interim decision [E]; final decision [E] ♦ [Subject: Right to know (right to the truth)]
1983: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Conteris versus Uruguay [E] ♦ [Subject: Unfair trial & torture of historian]
1984: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Martínez Machado versus Uruguay [E] ♦ [Subject: Imprisonment and disappearance of history teacher]
1987: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Cariboni versus Uruguay [E] ♦ [Subject: Unfair trial & torture of historian]
UZBEKISTAN
2005: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Hudoyberganova versus Uzbekistan [E] ♦ [Subject: History student excluded for wearing headscarf]
VIETNAM
See France 1993–.
WESTERN SAHARA
1975: International Court of Justice, Western Sahara (advisory opinion) [E][F] ♦ [Subject: Terra nullius]