skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: khadr omar

> Refine results with advanced case search

18 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 1 of 4   next > last >>

Khadr: United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr

Verdict, 31 Oct 2010, Military Commission, United States

Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was 15 years old when he was captured and seriously injured in a firefight in Afghanistan on 27 July 2002. The US accused Khadr of throwing a grenade that killed US Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer and injured two others. He was charged with murder and attempted murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying.

On 25 October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing support for terrorism, and spying, and was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment.

In spite of Khadr's young age at the time of his capture, the United States imprisoned him together with adults.

Khadr was the first person since World War II to be prosecuted in a military commission for war crimes committed while still a minor. His conviction and sentence were widely denounced by civil rights groups and various newspaper editorials. He has been frequently referred to as a child soldier.


Khadr: United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr

Ruling on Defense Motion for Dismissal Due to Lack of Jurisdiction Under the MCA in Regard to Juvenile Crimes of a Child Soldier, 30 Apr 2008, Military Commission, United States

Omar Ahmed Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured by United States forces in Pakistan in 2003 and transferred to detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His first trial before a military commission was due to proceed until the United States Supreme Court ruled that such commissions were unlawful. Following Congress’ enactment of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Khadr was again charged and due to stand trial before the new military commissions for conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, spying and material support for terrorism for his alleged involvement with Al Qaeda.

The present decision is the result of a motion by lawyers for Khadr attempting to halt the proceedings by arguing that the military commissions have no jurisdiction to try child soldiers. The motion was rejected by the Judge on the grounds that nothing in customary international law or international treaties, or indeed in the text of the Military Commissions Act bars proceedings against child soldiers for violations of the laws of war. This decision paved the way for Khadr’s trial to begin in October 2010. It concluded following a plea arrangement in which Khadr pleaded guilty to the charges and received an 8-year sentence. He has recently been transferred to his native Canada to carry out the remainder of his sentence. 


Prosecutor v. Omar H.

Judgment, 23 Oct 2013, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands

In one of the first cases concerning (potential) foreign fighters, Omar H., a Dutch citizen, was found guilty of preparing to commit arson and/or an explosion, and of incitement to commit a terrorist crime on 23 October 2013. The District Court of Rotterdam found that Omar H.’s actions of searching online for information about how to make homemade bombs, visiting certain websites, and his purchase of the necessary objects to make a bomb demonstrated he was preparing to commit an act of arson and/or explosion. However, the Court rejected the Prosecutor’s submission that this constituted training for a terrorist crime as there was a need for actual preparation or execution in order to speak of training. Omar H. was also found guilty of inciting terrorist crimes as he had put a film and text about terrorist attacks online, and he had started an online discussion about jihad in a public forum. Omar H. was sentenced to 12 months in prison, four of which were suspended. 


Prosecutor v. Omar H.

Appeal Judgment, 27 Jan 2015, Court of Appeal of The Hague, The Netherlands

On 27 January 2015, the Hague Court of Appeal convicted Omar H. for training for terrorism and making preparations to commit arson and/or an explosion. Thus, the Appeals Court agreed with the District Court of Rotterdam that Omar H. had prepared to commit arson and/or an explosion. However, it distanced itself from the District Court’s finding that Omar H. had not trained for terrorism as, according to the District Court, his actions could not be considered as “training”. On the contrary, the Hague Court of Appeal decided that training for terrorism had to be interpreted broadly. Researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s interest in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. Omar H. was sentenced in total to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal.  


Prosecutor v. Omar H

Judgment, 31 May 2016, Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Netherlands

In May 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Omar H, a foreign fighter convicted of training for terrorism. In upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided that training for terrorism in this context would be interpreted broadly. Thus, researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s other interests in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed Omar H’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. 


<< first < prev   page 1 of 4   next > last >>