Search results

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeal found that the Geneva Convention was not judicially enforceable so Hamdan cannot rely on it before the federal courts. The Court continued that, even if it were, Hamdan was not entitled to its protection because the Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda members. Hamdan’s trial could proceed before a military commission. 

Vinko Kondić was born on 25 September 1953 in Donje Sokolovo in the municipality of Ključ, Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the war in the former Yugoslavia, he served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) Municipal Organisation in Ključ, as Commander of the Ključ police station (SJB), as member of the Ključ Crisis Headquarters and as member of the Ključ Defence Council. The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed that Kondić participated in the crimes committed in June 1991 against Bosnian Muslims (Bosniak) and Croat civilians. In particular, he allegedly killed and transferred Bosniak and Croat men to concentration camps where they were beaten, threatened with weapons, and tortured.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US Court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. Before the District Court ruled on this case en banc, two previous panels had ruled on this case, thereby mostly focussing on the question whether or not the case should be dismissed as it touched upon questions of US foreign policy, questions which should only be addressed by the Executive Branch of the government. The Court of Appeals en banc took a different route and stated that the District Court should assess in depth whether the fact that the islanders had not exhausted local remedies should lead to dismissal of the case. To this end the Court of Appeals established a framework of applying the ‘exhaustion principle’ and referred the case back to the District Court. 

The Cambodian genocide (1975-1979) saw numerous serious crimes in violation of international law perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, in attempting to create a socialist government in Cambodia, took Cambodians from cities and forced their relocation into labor camps in the countryside. Physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease were prevalent. Elites, foreigners, and those considered enemies of the state were executed. It is estimated that almost 2 million people died.

Case 002/01 was limited to the crimes involved in the movement of the populations and executions at Tuol Po Chrey that occurred during the period of the Cambodian genocide. The case found defendants Nuon Chea, the Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea and Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea, guilty of crimes against humanity. The defendants were charged for the crimes of murder, political persecution, and other inhumane acts (forced transfer) for the two forced movements of Cambodians from the cities to rural areas and other related crimes. In addition, the defendants were found guilty of the added charges pertaining to the hundreds of executions of Khmer Republic soldiers and officials that occurred at Tuol Po Chrey, executed by Khmer Rouge forces.

Both defendants appealed.

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations.