Search results

Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah was captured in Afghanistan for his involvement with the Taliban. Since 2002, Al Odah has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detained person to challenge the legality of his detention) in May 2002. In 2008, the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States, considered that US federal courts have jurisdiction to hear petitions of habeas corpus. The District Court denied Al Odah’s petition on the grounds that the evidence adduced by the US Government was enough to permit his detention. 

Al Odah appealed the District Court’s judgment raising challenges with respect to the procedure admitting evidence as well as the sufficiency of evidence to support that he was part of the al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

The Court of Appeals dismissed both grounds of appeal since it did not find any errors either in the District Court’s procedure on admitting evidence or in the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the US Government. In this light, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Al Odah’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In September 2007, 14 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20 wounded by employees of Blackwater, a private security company hired by the US to protect its government employees. They stated that it was self-defence, but were charged with manslaughter.

They alleged they made statements under pressure (as they were threatened to be fired if they would not do so). Under US law, these statements are ‘compelled’ and can therefore not be used in criminal proceedings. As these statements appeared in the press, both the prosecution team and witnesses were influenced by them. Therefore, the Court ruled, the rights of the defendants have been inexcusably breached. It dismissed the charges against the defendants.

The Court of Appeals did not agree and stated that the District Court should have been more specific when it branded the evidence against the defendants as ‘tainted’. It held that, for example, witness statements should have been subjected to a part by part examination to determine which parts were tainted. These statements should not have been ‘thrown out’ entirely, according to the Court of Appeals. 

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this, while the British government argued that they could not be held responsible for atrocities which, if proven, were committed by the Colonial government in the 1950s. Therefore, the British government requested the Court to dismiss the case before it would come to a trial. The Court refused to do this, stating that evidence existed of torture in pre-independence Kenya and of some UK involvement. This evidence, the Court reasoned (without establishing the liability of the British government), should be assessed in Court. 

Viktor Bout, a notorious international arms dealer also known as the Merchant of Death, was alleged of trafficking weapons to several African warlords, dictators in the Middle-East and the Colombian FARC. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decided to catch him through a sting operation in which DEA officers posed as FARC fighters and discussed with him a multimillion-dollar weapons transaction supposedly in order to aid the FARC in its fight against the Colombian government and the United States. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand.

The US charged him with conspiracy to kill US nationals and officials and with conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organisation (the FARC). Initially, Bout managed to have the Thai Criminal Court prohibit his extradition due to it being politically motivated. However, in appeals the decision was overturned and Bout was extradited to the US in 2010. A US jury found him guilty on all charges in 2011 and on 5 April 2012, he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment - the minimum sentence, since the judge had found "no reason to believe Bout would ever have committed the charged crimes".

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.