Search results

The three Accused – Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze - were charged in separate indictments but were tried jointly for their role in the Rwandan genocide. They were all charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity. Nahimana and Barayagwiza were additionally charged murder as a crime against humanity, while Barayagwiza was also charged with war crimes.

On 3 December 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR found the three Accused guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity. They were found not guilty of complicity in genocide and of murder as a crime against humanity. Barayagwiza was also acquitted of the charges for war crimes. The Chamber sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life imprisonment. Regarding Barayagwiza, the Chamber considered that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment, but, in its decisions dated 31 March 2000, the Appeals Chamber had decided that for the violation of his rights, the Accused was entitled to a reduction of his sentence, if he was found guilty. Therefore, the Trial Chamber sentenced him to twenty-seven years, three months and twenty-one days. 

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba).

The District Court granted the motion, after being satisfied that a four-part test was fulfilled. This test required the Court to balance four relevant factors, namely: (a) the irreparable injury to the Petitioners in the absence of the injunction; (b) the likelihood of success of the habeas corpus motion; (c) the harm to the US government; and (d) the public interest.

The District Court ruled that the US government must give the lawyers of the detainees 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged. 

In 1992, the so-called Mujahedin forces joined the military struggle of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Serbian forces. During three incidents between 1993 and 1995, the Mujahedin forces maltreated and killed both civilians and soldiers of the adversaries. 

Trial Chamber I found that these acts amounted to war crimes in the meaning of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute. 

When considering whether Rasim Delić could be held responsible for failing to prevent and punish these crimes, the Chamber found that he was guilty only with respect to the cruel treatment of captured Serb soldiers during the Livade incident. It found Delić not guilty with respect to the incident of Bikoši due to the lack of superior-subordinate relationship between those who committed the crimes and Delic. Responsibility for the last incident – in Kesten – was also rejected due to Delić's lack of reason to know that the crimes were about to be committed. 

Delić received a sentence of three years of imprisonment.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the men filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the Government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US Government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba). The District Court granted the motion.

In the present decision of 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The case is the first time that the standard laid out in Bensayah v. Obama et al. has been applied concerning the requirement for the government to demonstrate evidence that an enemy combatant is “part of” a terrorist organisation.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the then-Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

After a line of litigation spanning 3 years and culminating in a Supreme Court decision in 2010, proceedings against Samantar were allowed to continue as he did not enjoy immunity.

Samantar accepted responsibility in February 2012; the present decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held Samantar liable as a superior for the crimes perpetrated by his subordinates in the Somali Armed Forces and the affiliated national intelligence services against the plaintiffs who were awarded $21 million in damages.