Search results

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.

The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeal found that the Geneva Convention was not judicially enforceable so Hamdan cannot rely on it before the federal courts. The Court continued that, even if it were, Hamdan was not entitled to its protection because the Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda members. Hamdan’s trial could proceed before a military commission. 

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 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.

In 2006, Jennifer Harbury, the wife of ex-rebel commander Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez who was killed in Guatemala in the early 1990s, brought a complaint against U.S. governmental officials. Harbury claimed that her husband was captured in 1992 by Guatemalan army officers who were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Harbury claimed that Bamaca was physically abused and tortured during his detention in order to extract information from him about the Guatemalan rebel forces.

Harbury’s tort claim was dismissed because the District Court found that it did not have authority to rule on it since the damage occurred in another state, namely in Guatemala. On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the case involved political questions which are non-justiciable, and, in addition, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Harbury’s tort claim.

Two Palestinians living in Gaza, referred to as A and B, were detained in 2002 and 2003, respectively, due to their purported association with Hezbollah. They brought a complaint at the Israeli District Court stating that their detention was unlawful because the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law of 2002, on which their detention orders were based, was not in accordance with the Basic Laws of Israel and infringed principles of international humanitarian law.

After having their case dismissed by the District Court, the plaintiffs appealed at the Israeli Supreme Court. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law was in conformity with the Basic Laws of Israel. In addition, the Supreme Court held that their detention was lawful because there was a chance that they would reconnect with Hezbollah and they could therefore pose a risk to Israel’s national security.