Search results

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55^th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit. Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Al Bihani’s appeal.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

Members of the Isaaq clan allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the-then Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

After a line of litigation spanning 3 years and including a Supreme Court decision, Samantar accepted liability as a superior for the crimes perpetrated by his subordinates in the Somali Armed Forces and the affiliated national intelligence services. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded $21 million in damages.

The present decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the result of Samantar’s appeal against the District Court’s dismissal of his claims for immunity from proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal finding that Samantar enjoys no immunity for acts of torture, summary execution and arbitrary detention even if they were performed by him in his official capacity as such conduct is universally prohibited. 

The Bemba case represents a significant milestone in international law, particularly concerning the doctrine of command responsibility. Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity (murder and rape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging). These charges were linked to the actions of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), a militia group under his command, in the Central African Republic (CAR) between 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. Bemba's trial was groundbreaking in several aspects. It was one of the first major ICC trials focusing on sexual violence as an international crime, setting a precedent for how such crimes are prosecuted globally. The prosecution argued that Mr. Bemba had effective command and control over the MLC troops and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of these crimes, nor did he submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 

The defense contended that Mr. Bemba had limited means to control his forces once they were deployed in CAR and that he was not directly responsible for the atrocities committed. They argued for his inability to exercise control over the troops due to communication challenges and logistical constraints. 

The judgment and the legal reasoning behind it delved into the nuances of command responsibility, assessing the extent of a military leader's liability for the actions of their subordinates. The trial also addressed complex issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the participation of victims in the proceedings, making it a landmark international criminal law case. 

This case was closely watched by international legal experts and human rights advocates, as it had significant implications for how commanders at all levels are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict was seen as a test of the ICC's ability to bring high-ranking officials to justice and a statement on the international community's commitment to addressing grave human rights violations. 

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan. Having been unsuccessful before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. By its decision of 28 June 2005, the Court of Appeals once again dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine as they would require the Courts to interpret treaties concluded between foreign States. 

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.