Search results

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. Concerning the liability of the United States, the Court found that the issue was of such important nature that it remanded the question and initiated an en banc (full court) hearing to decide on it.

Between April and July 1994, as much as 10% of the entire Rwandese civilian population was murdered in an ethnic conflict in which the Hutu sought to eliminate the Tutsi. At the same time, an armed conflict was fought between the Rwandese government army (FAR) and the armed forces of the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF). The RPF were a rebel army primarily composed of descendants of Rwandese Tutsi who fled from Rwanda in preceding years.

The Accused, Joseph Mpambara, fled Rwanda for The Netherlands. He was brought before the Dutch courts on charges of war crimes, torture and genocide. The present decision by the District Court of The Hague convicted the Accused of complicity in torture on two separate incidents. The first concerned the threatening of a German man, his Tutsi wife and their baby at a roadblock. The second concerned the mutilation and murder of a number of Tutsi women and their children who were stopped and forced outside from the ambulance in which they were being transported from one locality to another.

The Court was not able to convict the Accused for war crimes as it found that there wasn’t a sufficient link between the acts and the armed conflict in Rwanda. It was precluded from prosecuting the charges of genocide because the Dutch courts lacked jurisdiction. The Accused was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Aloys Ntabakuze is an ex-Commander of the Rwandan Para-Commando Battalion. On 18 December 2008 the Tribunal found him guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, namely murder, extermination, persecution and other inhumane acts, and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (violence to life). He appealed the judgment on 37 grounds. The Appeals Chamber agreed with the Trial Chamber’s ruling that Ntabakuze was guilty as a superior for the participation of members of the Para-Commando Battalion in the killings committed at Nyanza hill on 11 April 1994 and at IAMSEA around 15 April 1994. However, the Chamber reversed Ntabazuke’s convictions for stopping the refugees killed at Nyanza hill from seeking sanctuary and for the killings in Kabeza on 7 and 8 April 1994, as well as for murder as a crime against humanity. The Appeals Chamber also set aside the Trial Chamber’s finding of Ntabakuze’s responsibility for the crimes committed by militiamen. Thus, his sentence to life imprisonment was reversed and he was sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment instead.

The Rwandan government suspects the Jean-Claude Iyamuremye, a Rwandan national residing in the Netherlands, of having taken part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide as Interahamwe militia leader. He is indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 25 September 2013, Rwandan authorities issued an extradition request with the Netherlands. The accused challenged the request, arguing that war crimes were not prohibited as such in Rwandan law in 1994, and that therefore he cannot be extradited. He also alleged that Rwanda would not provide him with a fair trial; if he were to be extradited, the Netherlands would violate their obligations forthcoming from the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court dismisses both arguments. Since genocide was prohibited by both Rwandan and Dutch law in 1994, the double criminality requirement has already been fulfilled. And concerning fair trial rights, the Court found that it was obliged to apply a marginal test, since the Netherlands and Rwanda are both parties to the Genocide Convention and, thus, have to trust each other on fulfilling their respective treaty obligations. It ruled that extradition would not lead to a flagrant denial of a fair trial; hence the Court ruled the extradition request admissible.