Search results

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

The Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The Court of Appeals considered that these are the “reasonably available information in the possession of the U.S. Government”, without, however, hindering the Government’s ability to subject highly sensitive information to a protective order (meaning that the inspection of available information should be allowed to the detainees counsel with the exception of certain highly sensitive information, which will be available to the Court only).

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to grant a summary judgment and thereby to dismiss the claims before a trial would be held. The Court denied this request, stating that in this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their allegations and for the proceedings to continue. The Court considered that the plaintiffs had made it likely that the Indonesian security forces had maltreated them and that Exxon Mobil was responsible for this. One of Exxon’s companies, EMOI, had controlled and paid the forces and according to the Court, EMOI should have foreseen that violence would take place. 

In November 1993, Senad Ahmetašević, former member of a National Defense unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina, killed a prisoner of war in the Omica Brdo region. On 13 March 2007, the Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the extradition of Ahmetašević who resided in the Netherlands at the time. Ahmetašević opposed the extradition. On 5 June 2009, the District Court of The Hague approved the request for extradition. The Court held that the requirements for extradition were met and that there was no fear that Ahmetašević would not enjoy fair trial rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Al-Aulaqi case is significant as it marks in all probability the first time that an American citizen has been killed by U.S. forces outside the borders of the U.S., without any trial, indictment or due process. The case revolves around Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship who was a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and had gone into hiding in Yemen, from where he regularly published videos propagating the jihad. The U.S. Treasury Department had allegedly designated him for targeted killing. Therefore, his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, filed a complaint claiming that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA unlawfully authorised the targeted killing, and seeking an injunction prohibiting them from intentionally killing his son, except in case he did present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and when there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralise the threat. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights intervened with a memorandum supporting Al-Aulaqi senior’s complaint.

The Columbia District Court found that plaintiff Al-Aulaqi, the father, had neither legal standing in court for his claims, nor that was the claim justiciable under the Alien Tort Statute. And if this was not enough, the Court also ruled that the political question doctrine barred it from adjudicating the case. On 7 December 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s complaint was dismissed on those grounds, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on 30 September 2011.

The death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994 reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations that had previously resulted in a civil war in the early 1990s. An Interim Government was established, which developed a plan to eradicate the Tutsi “enemy” with the use of the armed forces and various civilian militia groups including the feared Interahamwe.

The six Accused in the present case all represented military, political or civilian authorities in Butare commune: Nyiramasuhuko was the Minister of Family and Women’s Development; Nsabimana served as the prefect of Butare from April until 17 June 1994; Nteziryayo was a member of the Ministry of the Interior; Kanyabashi was the mayor of Ngoma commune; Ndayambaje was the mayor of Muganza commune and Ntahobali was a leader of a unit of the Interahamwe. Following the replacement of the former prefect of Butare by Nsabimana on 20 April 1994, large scale massacres of Tutsi took place in Butare commune. Thousands were slaughtered with machetes and grenades at Mugombwe Church, Kabuye Hill, Kabakobwe Hill and Matyazo Clinic. In line with the Interim Government’s policy, roadblocks were set up at which Tutsi could be identified, separated, abducted, raped and killed by soldiers and Interhamwe alike. Megaphone announcements were heard throughout Butare town encouraging the Hutu to flush out and eradicate their Tutsi enemy.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted each of the Accused variously for genocide, cnspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement of genocide, the crimes against humanity of extermination, persecution and rape and the war crimes of violence to life and outrage supon personal dignity. Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali and Ndayambaje were sentenced to life imprisonment; Kanybashi, Nteziryayo and Nsabimana to 35, 30 and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively.

The case is currently on appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR.