Search results

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia granted the petition and ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US the government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The US Government appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010. The Court of Appeals considered that the intelligence report, which stood as central evidence against Latif, was entitled to a presumption of regularity and the inconsistencies of the Report are likely the result of imperfect translations. The Court of Appeal also found inconsistencies in Latif’s account of the events. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed the granted habeas corpus petition.

In the final trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Accused was Augustin Ngirabatware, the Minister of Planning from 1990 until July 1994 in the Rwandan government and an influential figure by virtue of his education and wealthy background. Indicted on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, the Trial Chamber found that Ngirabatware had actively espoused the killing of the Tutsi population in Rwanda by delivering speeches to large assembled crowds encouraging them to man roadblocks and kill Tutsis. He distributed weapons to the Interahamwe militia and encouraged them to perpetrate crimes against the Tutsi population. Ngirabatware was convicted of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment on 20 December 2012.

T, a Rwandan national who had lived in exile in Denmark under a false name since 2001, was brought before a Danish court in 2011 for committing genocide, namely heading a death squad and participating in the slaughter of 25,000 Tutsis in a Rwandan town in 1994.

While the Rwandan authorities requested T's extradition in February 2012, the Danish Supreme Court decided on 26 April 2012 that T. could be prosecuted in Denmark for genocide. Nevertheless, on 29 June 2012 the Minister of Justice decided that T. was to be extradited to Rwanda. T. challenged this decision, but both the first instance and appeals courts dismissed his arguments.

In last instance, the Supreme Court found, referring inter alia to the Sweden v. Ahorugeze-decision on extradition in a rather similar situation, that there was no reason to not extradite T. It confirmed the earlier decisions.

On 19 June 2017, Canadian citizen Ismaël Habib was the first adult found guilty of attempting to leave Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Mr. Habib had already travelled to Syria in 2013 for three months, but he was arrested and brought back to Canada as his passport had been cancelled by the Canadian authorities. Following initial suspicions, the Canadian police created an elaborate undercover operation by establishing a fictitious criminal organisation in which Mr. Habib was working. The accused was arrested in February 2016 after he confessed to a police undercover officer that he wished to leave for Syria to fight with ISIS. Even though the accused conceded that he had the primary intent of leaving Canada, there was a dispute on his reasons for doing so. While Mr. Habib argued that he wished to join his first wife and children in Syria, the prosecution contended that the defendant’s intent was to join ISIS and participate in its terrorist activities.