Search results

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US Government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Guus Kouwenhoven was convicted in first instance for his involvement in supplying arms to Liberia and acquitted of having committed war crimes during the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003).

Both the prosecutor and Kouwenhoven appealed against this verdict. In an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals most importantly rejected the motion of the defense to bar the prosecutor from prosecuting this case. Based on the information before it, the Court did not find grave violations of Kouwenhoven's right to a fair trial. The Court did sustain the defense’s motion to have more witnesses heard by the investigative judge. The Court foresaw this to be a lengthy process, and therefore suspended Kouwenhoven’s detention. 

Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official person. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.

The Second Instance Court upheld the appeals of the accused in part, modifying the sentences imposed. The reason for this modification was the errors made by the First Instance Court in weighting and balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the taking into consideration factors that pertained to the substantial analysis of the offence (and therefore should not have been considered in the sentencing phase). Accordingly, the Appellate Panel modified this judgement, sentencing Bektaševic to 8 years 4 months, Cesur to 6 years 6 months, Ikanović to 4 years and Hasanović to 6 months.

Until July 1994, Michel Bagaragaza was the managing director of OCIR-Tea, the controlling body for the tea industry in Rwanda. Bagaragaza is accused of conspiring with his employees in order to kill Tutsis in the Gisenyi Prefecture. In addition, he was a member of the local committee of the Republican Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND) for the Gisenyi Prefecture. Bagaragaza was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on charges of genocide, and in the alternative, war crimes. His case was referred to The Netherlands at the request of the Prosecutor of the ICTR.

However, a decision of the District Court of The Hague in a case against another Rwandan national, Joseph Mpambara, in which the Court held that the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over genocide committed by non-Dutch nationals abroad prior to 2003, was released soon after Bagaragaza's surrender to The Netherlands. Fearing that the outcome would be the same and the case against him would not proceed in The Netherlands, the ICTR requested The Netherlands to surrender Bagaragaza back to the ICTR for prosecution. By a decision of 21 March 2008, the District Court of The Hague authorised the surrender. 

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions. The legal provisions which suspended this right were found to be unconstitutional. Also, all previous Guantanamo detainees'  corpus petitions were found to be eligible for reinstatement. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the grounds that the United States has unilateral control over Guantanamo Bay and, therefore, the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts.