Search results

After the Chilean military staged a coup d’état in September 1973, elected President Salvador Allende was replaced with a military junta, chaired by Augusto Pinochet. During his time in office, widespread human rights violations were reported. In this case, the plaintiffs sought to establish the responsibility of the United States, more particularly former National Security Adviser and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for these human rights violations. According to several victims and family of victims, the United States played an important role in the military coup, for example by funding and assisting the military.

The District Court had dismissed the claim on its merits, but the Court of Appeals held that the Court did not even have jurisdiction. Under US law, claims regarding strictly political questions, for example regarding foreign policy and defense, are barred. The Court held that this claim regarded measures taken to implement foreign policy and that a judge should not rule on this. Questions regarding foreign policy, the Court reasoned, should remain strictly within the domain of politics. 

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

In this decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia and held that Hamdan’s trial by military commission would be unlawful for a number of reasons: conspiracy, with which he is charged, is not a crime against the laws of war, the commissions do not conform to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor with the rights guaranteed to Hamdan under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Abimael Guzmán was the founder of the Shining Path, a guerrilla group in Perú. The aim of the Shining Path was to overthrow the Peruvian government. Between 1980 and 2000, the Shining Path was responsible for an extensive campaign of violence, including the killings of thousands of people.

Guzmán was arrested in 1992, and in the same year, a secret military court sentenced him to life imprisonment. This decision was found to have been based on unconstitutional laws in 2003, and resulted in the retrial of Guzmán and the other Shining Path leaders. The charges included terrorism, murder and other offences. The lower Peruvian court found Guzmán guilty of terrorism and other offences, sentencing him, and his second in command, Elena Iparraguirre, to life imprisonment. The other ten co-defendants were also found guilty, and received sentences between 24 and 35 years of imprisonment.

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. 

On 19 June 2017, Canadian citizen Ismaël Habib was the first adult found guilty of attempting to leave Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Mr. Habib had already travelled to Syria in 2013 for three months, but he was arrested and brought back to Canada as his passport had been cancelled by the Canadian authorities. Following initial suspicions, the Canadian police created an elaborate undercover operation by establishing a fictitious criminal organisation in which Mr. Habib was working. The accused was arrested in February 2016 after he confessed to a police undercover officer that he wished to leave for Syria to fight with ISIS. Even though the accused conceded that he had the primary intent of leaving Canada, there was a dispute on his reasons for doing so. While Mr. Habib argued that he wished to join his first wife and children in Syria, the prosecution contended that the defendant’s intent was to join ISIS and participate in its terrorist activities.