Search results

On 4 November 2005, a complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of people injured or killed during the bombing of the UN compound (an area protected by the UN) in Qana on 18 April 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians and wounding hundreds. The plaintiffs claimed that General Moshe Ya’alon, the head of the IDF Army Intelligence who launched the bombing, should be held responsible for the decision to bomb the UN compound.

On 14 December 2006, the District Court dismissed the case, finding that Ya'alon could not be sued because the Court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Ya’alon (as he enjoyed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and denied the need for jurisdictional discovery.

On 15 February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision of the District Court.

Between April 2012 and January 2013,the armed Islamist groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) took control of Timbuktu, Mali. The current case concerns the acts committed by Mr. Al Hassan who was the chief of the Islamic Police and was involved in the Islamic Court’s work.At the time that Mr. Al Hassan was the Chief of the Islamic Police, he enforced discriminatory laws and committed religious persecution, among other crimes. Through his role in the Islamic Court, Mr. Al Hassan took part in the transfer of accused persons, and implemented the judgments and sentences handed down by the Islamic Court. 

On 26 June 2024, the ICCconvicted Mr. Al Hassan of several of the charges brought against him of war crimes and crimes against humanity. During the sentencing judgement, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances of the minor actions taken by Mr. Al Hassan to assist the civilian population in 2012-2013 and his cooperation with the Prosecution at the investigation stage. Mr. Al Hassan wassentenced to 10 years of imprisonment on 20 November 2024. The time which Mr. Al Hassan had spent in detention from 28 March 2018 to 20 November 2024, was deducted from his sentence. As such, Mr. Al Hassan will be serving his sentence for committing the war crimes of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, sentencing without due process, and mutilation, as well as the crimes against humanity oftorture, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

In 1988, the Iraqi government under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, launched a military campaign against the Kurdish population residing in northern Iraq. In eight operations from February until September of that year, both conventional and chemical weapons were deployed against the citizens of Kurdish villages resulting in the deaths and injury of hundreds of thousands. Others were executed in the following raids, their homes were looted and entire villages were burned to the ground. Others still were transported to prison camps where they were starved and detained in inhumane conditions. This campaign became known as the Al Anfal campaign and was the subject of the Iraqi High Tribunal’s second case  (the first one being the Al Dujail-trial). 

Seven defendants, including Saddam Hussein and his cousin, nicknamed Chemical Ali, were brought before the Court. Charges against Hussein were dropped when he was executed in the course of the trial as a result of his conviction in another proceeding. By a verdict of 24 June 2007, the Tribunal convicted five of the remaining six defendants, one of whom was acquitted for lack of evidence. Three, including Chemical Ali and two military commanders, received death sentences; the others received cumulative sentences that essentially amounted to life imprisonment. The present decision by the Appellate Chamber of the Tribunal confirmed the trial verdict and dismissed all appeals.

On 14 February 2005, a bomb in downtown Beirut exploded, killing 22 people, including the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established by the Security Council in order to prosecute persons responsible for the bombing.

In its interlocutory decision, the Appeals Chamber interpreted the STL Statute to require application of substantive Lebanese law as applied by Lebanese courts, but not before noting that binding international obligations, including customary international law, should inform any such interpretation. The Appeals Chamber held, inter alia, that not only does a customary rule exists between states to suppress terrorist act, but that terrorism is an individual international crime under customary law.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Appeals Chamber examined state practice and binding international covenants to assert that the crime of terrorism is “commonly accepted at the international level.” As such, the Chamber derived the key components in formulating a general definition of terrorism: (1) the perpetration of a criminal act; (2) the intent to spread fear among the population or coerce a national or international authority to take some action; (3) and the act involves a transnational element.  For the first time, a tribunal of international character has established the existence of a customary rule of international law recognizing an international crime of terrorism in times of peace.

Article 22 of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon permits the Tribunal to conduct trials in the absence of the accused, in absentia, if the accused has expressly waived his right to be present, has absconded, or cannot be found. Before a trial in absentia may proceed, however, all reasonable steps must be taken to secure the accused’s appearance before the Tribunal. In this decision, the Trial Chamber determined that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found after Lebanese authorities employed numerous efforts to apprehend them in light of a several months long, comprehensive, and permeating media coverage of the indictment notifying the accused of the charges against them and their rights to participate in the trial. Thus, the Trial Chamber found that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the presence of the accused, held that all four of the accused had absconded or otherwise could not be found, and ordered the trial to proceed in absentia.