Search results

Mr Raslan was accused of committing crimes against humanity, torture, rape, sexual coercion, murder, and numerous other serious crimes in violation of international law. In 2022, the Koblenz Higher Regional Court convicted him for his part in Syria’s violent suppression of oppositionists and sentenced him to life in prison. Mr Raslan appealed his conviction on several grounds, which the present Appeals Order assessed.

First, Mr Raslan argued that since he was acting on behalf of the Syrian government, his actions should be immune to prosecution. The court disagreed, stating that acting under the direction of the state does not provide immunity for the commission of international crimes. Second, Mr Raslan argued that allowing the prosecution to read a UN Commission of Inquiry report to establish much of the factual background violated a rule that normally requires an individual to testify to their findings. The court disagreed and applied an exception that allows reports from public authorities to be read in court without calling the authors to testify. The court reasoned that the United Nations is to be treated on a par with any German public authority, and as a public authority, its reports are generally considered reliable. It also explained that the experts who drafted the reports would likely have little to add beyond what is already written, so requiring them to testify would be unreasonably burdensome without providing any real benefit.

Third, Mr Raslan challenged several of his convictions on multiple grounds. The court reduced a conviction of rape to sexual coercion because, at the time the crime was committed, the law required Mr Raslan to be physically present, which he was not. The court also overturned two counts of sexual coercion because those two crimes were already tried correctly in his conviction for crimes against humanity. In other words, he cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Two counts of sexually abusing prisoners were reduced to aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of prisoners because, like his former rape conviction, the law at the time required that he be physically present, and he was not. Finally, his last count of sexual abuse of a prisoner was overturned and dismissed because the government only has five years after the crime to bring charges for this offense.

Mr Raslan’s sentence of life imprisonment remained unaltered.

On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty-one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.

The twenty-one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the District Court to hold that any individual is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, an inherent common law right, where they have been deprived of their liberty by an act of the United States Government and their detention is in violation of the United States Constitution. 

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, independence supporters were the object of attack by local militia groups who favoured Indonesian autonomy. The Accused, Joao Sarmento, was a member of one such militia group, the Tim Sasurat Ablai. During his involvement in the militia, he was involved in the murder of a number of independence supporters and the forcible transfer of approximately 15 000 villagers from East to West Timor. In particular, he pleaded guilty to two counts of murder; one involved the stabbing of a villager who refused to be deported, and another the murder of a boy as his mother attempted to shield him from the militia. He was sentenced to 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment by the Special Panels. 

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. 

Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki jointly brought an action against the government of Japan for the damages they and members of their families suffered as a result of the atomic bombings by the United States in August 1945.

Among other things, it was alleged that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an unlawful act and that Japan's waiver of claims for damages under domestic and international law against the US gave rise to an obligation for the government of Japan itself to pay damages.

The Court held that the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were violations of the laws and customs of war, because the attacks did not distinguish between military and civilian targets and inflicted unnecessary suffering. The Court ruled that the bombings, as an indiscriminate bombardment on undefended cities were unlawful acts.

With regard to the claim of the plaintiffs for damages, the Court ruled that individuals did not have rights under international law unless specifically provided for. Since this was not the case, the Court held that individuals could not claim damages directly under international law. The claim was dismissed by the Court on this ground.