Search results

Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. In 2005, he filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the person to challenge the legality of his/her detention). In May 2009, the US Government filed a motion requesting the designation as ‘protected’ (meaning that it can be shared only with the counsel of the detainee and the Court) of the decision of the Guantanamo Review Task Force approving Ameziane for a transfer from Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

On 30 June 2009, the District Court denied the request of the US Government since the Government failed to explain why the disclosure of “this one piece of information”, referring to the Task Force decision, would be harmful. 

On 8 January 2010, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned this decision on the grounds that the District Court applied inappropriately the standard for determining whether the Task Force decision should be designated as ‘protected’.  The Court of Appeals considered that the US Government has met the required standard and, therefore, the District Court should have granted its motion for designation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision.

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 (AUMF) of 2001. Barhoumi challenged the District Court’s decision, arguing that the evidence upon which the decision was based do not prove that he was “part of” an al-Qaeda-associated organization.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Barhoumi, finding that the adduced evidence was sufficient to warrant his detention under the 2001 AUMF. Accordingly, the District Court’s decision was affirmed.

Ali Mahmud Ali Shafi is a Palestinian national who was spying for Israel until he moved to Israel in 1994. On his return to Palestine in 2001, he was arrested by Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers and subsequently brought to a PA security building where he was detained for several months. During that period, he was severely beaten, left without any clothes, and was not permitted to take a bath. In 2002, Ali Shafi was forced to sign a confession which was used as the basis for his conviction of killing the Palestinian leader Raed al Karmi and for spying for Israel. He was sentenced to death. However, in March 2002, Ali Shafi escaped.

In 2009, Ali Shafi brought a claim in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the PA and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The District Court dismissed the complaint. On 14 June 2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed the decision because claims can only be brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against state actors. The defendants in this case were no state actors and therefore appellants failed to state a claim within the jurisdiction conferred by the ATS.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. In this instance, the District Court had to rule whether referring the plaintiffs back to the Papua New Guinean legal system should be considered. The District Court held that this would be inappropriate with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and racial discrimination, as these claims are of ‘universal concern’.

With the case back at the Court of Appeals, the question to be determined was the scope of the jurisdiction of the ATCA with regard to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and racial discrimination. The Court held that genocide and war crimes fall within the scope of the ATCA. These norms, according to the Court, are specific, universal and obligatory accepted and extend to corporations. However, the crimes against humanity arising from a blockade and the racial discrimination claims are not and, therefore, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims of genocide and war crimes.

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.