Search results

Fofana and Kondewa were leaders in the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), an armed group that was participating in the conflict in Sierra Leone in order to restore the democratically elected government of President Kabbah who had been ousted by a coup of the Revolutionary United Forces (RUF) and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). The Accused were charged with eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed throughout the Southern and Eastern provinces of Sierra Leone including murder, cruel treatment (mutilation, hacking of limbs), terrorising the civilian population, burning and looting civilian property, using child soldiers in the hostilities and collective punishments.

Trial Chamber I found that the Accused were not guilty of crimes against humanity as it could not be proven that the attacks were directed primarily against the civilian population. The Accused were found guilty of aiding and abetting CDF forces in their commission of the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishments; Kondewa was additionally guilty of enlisting child soldiers. The Trial Chamber did not consider that they were guilty either for participating in a common plan to defeat the RUF/AFRC forces or as superiors responsible for the acts committed by their CDF subordinates.

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.

On 20 July 2007, the US 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 US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc.

On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request on both aspects raised by it. First, the Court of Appeals found that the scope of the record that will be reviewed must include all the Government Information. Second, the extent to which the Government may withhold information from the detainee’s counsel should not affect the burden vested upon the Government of producing the requested Government Information. 

Both accused, Enes Handžić and Senad Dautović, were found guilty of war crimes against humanity for their participation in the unlawful transport of civilians to camps, forced labour, inhumane treatments and murders, together with the civilian authorities of the Bugojno Municipality and the military units of the Army of BiH.

The case of Senad Dautović is currently on appeal.

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.

On 20 July 2007, the US 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 US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.

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.