Search results

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. Furthermore, the case presented a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions). This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

In 1988 the Iraqi government, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein launched a military campaign against the Kurdish population residing in northern Iraq. In eight operations from February until September of that year, both conventional and chemical weapons were deployed against the citizens of Kurdish villages resulting in the deaths and injury of hundreds of thousands. Others were executed in the following raids, their homes were looted and entire villages were burned to the ground. Others still were transported to prison camps where they were starved and detained in inhumane conditions. This campaign became known as the Al Anfal campaign and was the subject of the Iraqi High Tribunal’s second case (the first one being the Al Dujail-trial). 

Seven defendants, including Saddam Hussein and his cousin Ali Hassan Al-Majid ("Chemical Ali"), were brought before the Court. Charges against Hussein were dropped when he was executed in the course of the trial as a result of his conviction in another proceeding. By a verdict of 24 June 2007, the Tribunal convicted five of the remaining six defendants for charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. One of defendant, Tahir Tawfiq Yusif Al-'Ani, was acquitted for lack of evidence. Chemical Ali and two military commanders were sentenced to death by hanging; the other two were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Al-Mahmudiyah (Iraq), 12 March 2006: in the afternoon, US Army Sergeant Steven Green and members of his unit Paul Edward Cortez, James Paul Barker, Jesse Von-Hess Spielman and Bryan Lee Howard were playing cards and drinking whiskey at a traffic checkpoint, when Green stated that he wanted to kill some Iraqi civilians because of the deaths of several fellow infantrymen. After Green persisted, Barker eventually agreed to go along with Green’s plan, and he told Green that he knew a nearby house where an Iraqi man and three females (his wife and two daughters of 6 and 14 years old) lived. Barker also suggested that they have sex with one of those females. Green and Barker persuaded Cortez and Spielman to accompany them (pp. 2-3). They secretly left the compound, approached the house of the Al-Janabi family, killed the father, mother and youngest dauther and proceeded to gang-rape the other daughter, Abeer Qassim Hamsa. After this, they killed her as well and lit her body on fire.

The fire was discovered the next morning by civilians; it was reported to the US army compound and investigations were initiated. Although the initial outcome was that the perpetrators had probably been Iraqi counterinsurgents, rumours started spreading that US soldiers had raped and killed Iraqi civilians. Eventually, suspician fell on Green and consorts.  barker, Cortez and Howard were tried by court martial where they pleaded guilty; they received prison sentences. Green, however, had been discharged from the army on 28 March 2006 due to a personality disorder. Hence he had to be tried by a civil court. The US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky sentenced him to life imprisonment. In appeal, this decision was upheld.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Initial attempts to make him stand trial for crimes of conspiracy before a United States military commission were ultimately unsuccessful as the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that trial before such a commission would be unlawful. In response, Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act on the basis of which Hamdan was newly charged for counts of conspiracy and material support for terrorism. He was tried and convicted by a military commission for material support for terrorism and sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment, which he concluded in his native Yemen in 2008.

The present decision is the result of his appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated Hamdan’s conviction on the grounds that material support for terrorism was not a war crime under international law prior to 2001 at the time of Hamdan’s relevant conduct, therefore the military commission could not try and convict him on this basis.