Search results

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 the first instance verdict discussed here, the Thai Court denied the US petition to extradite Bout, stating that the crimes of which Bout was accused did not fall within the scope of the Extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand. Thailand did not consider the FARC to be a terrorist organisation and the Court held that the US accused Bout of a political offense, for which extradition was not possible. Moreover, the Court held that the crimes of which Bout was accused were not punishable in Thailand, as the offense was committed against ‘foreigners outside Thailand’.

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

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.

The petitioners, all 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.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Samantar enjoys immunity from proceedings before courts of the United States by virtue of his function as a State official at the relevant time under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, arguing that the FSIA is not applicable to individuals, and even if it were, the individual in question would have to be a government official at the time of proceedings commencing against him.

By the present decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals: the FSIA is not applicable to individuals so Samantar does not enjoy immunity from the present proceedings by virtue of it. Consequently, proceedings against him can continue. 

Mr. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. (“Charles Taylor Jr.”), the first individual to be prosecuted under the Torture Act and the son of Former Liberian President and convicted war criminal Charles Taylor, was arrested and indicted in Florida, U.S., in December 2006 following a joint Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) / Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation.

In the indictment, Belfast was charged for his role in numerous acts of torture and other atrocities in Liberia between 1999 and 2003 while he was the commander of the States Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU). After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses describing the torture that the defendant had subjected them to, a jury convicted him on all counts and he was sentenced to 97 years in prison.

In 2010, he appealed that conviction before the United States Eleventh Circuit, arguing that Congress impermissibly expanded the prohibitions of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) through the Torture Act and that the Torture Act and U.S. firearms Statutes, under which he was convicted, could not apply to acts committed in Liberia before Liberia became a State Party to the CAT.

The Court rejected all of his arguments and upheld the conviction, finding that the U.S. Torture Act validly enacted CAT and he was convicted in line with the Constitution.

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.