Search results

In March 2003, a military coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coalition forces remained in Iraq as an occupying force, engaging in the process of rebuilding the country. During the occupation, the US military contracted with several private military contractors for a wide array of services the US military simply had no manpower for, due to the implications of the occupation and rebuilding process. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they were hired to supervise detention centres or to provide security services and ended up torturing or unlawfully killing civilians. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc., and the current case Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Services Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3 Services, Inc., a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a U.S. citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 Services at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 Services and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also alleged that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 Services and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 Services and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint.

The Court disagreed with defendants. On 29 June 2010, it rejected the motions to dismiss, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was the sub-prefect of Gisaraga sub-prefecture in Butare prefecture in 1994. On 20 April 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and their families escaped attacks and sought refuge at Gisaraga market in Ndora commune. Some of these people were prevented from leaving the market that evening and the following morning by law enforcement personnel and were forced to return to Gisaraga market. From 21 April through 23 April many of the Tutsi refugees left Gisaraga market for Kabuye hill. There, an extensive assault on the refugees was carried out by armed civilians, police and military personnel resulting in the death or serious injury of hundreds, and possibly thousands of men, women, children and the elderly.

On 23 April 1994 the Accused had promised the Tutsi refugees that they would be protected at Kabuye hill, prompting them to go there. Yet, later that day, he transported soldiers to Kabuye hill to participate in the attack against them. For these reasons, Ntawukulilyayo was found guilty of genocide (Count I) and not guilty of complicity (Count II) and incitement (Count III) charges. He was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. 

The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. The Court of Appeal confirmed this, most importantly stating that this case essentially revolved around citizens from the West Bank and corporations carrying out work in the West Bank. Therefore, the Court held, it would require ‘a great deal of imagination to claim that the action has a serious connection with Quebec’. 

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 attempted to order about hundred anti-air missiles and weapons "to use against Colombian and United States nationals" in Colombia. The operation succeeded and Bout was caught by police forces in Thailand. In first instance, the Thai Criminal Court rejected the United States’ extradition request, stating that the charges did not fell within the scope of the extradition treaty. The US appealed.

The Court of Appeal found that extradition is possible, since the charged offenses were punishable both under Thai and US law. Also, the Court disagreed with the Criminal Court on the political nature of the charges. Even though both Courts considered the FARC to be a politically oriented organisation, Bout was not a member of the FARC. Therefore, his offences were ‘ordinary’ offences, the Court reasoned, which fell within the scope of the extradition treaty.

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.

Al Bihani appealed the decision arguing that he was entitled to a rehearing. A seven-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the rehearing and upheld the decision that international law does not limit the President’s powers of detention and consequently al Bihani’s detention is lawful. However, all seven Circuit judges appended opinions demonstrating the importance of the question at hand and their separate reasoning.