Search results

Šefik Alić was born on 3 March 1968 in Dobro Selo in the municipality of Buzim, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alić was Assistant Commander for Security of the Hamza Battalion of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 5 August 1995, during the Oluja military operation, soldiers of both the Hamza Battalion and Tewfik Al Harbi captured four soldiers of the army of the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Even though the Hamza Battalion had to protect them, the four soldiers were physically and mentally abused, and Alić participated in the abuses. The four soldiers were subsequently killed by members of Tewfik Al Harbi. As Assistant Commander, Alić had a duty to punish soldiers that committed crimes under his command, but he failed to do so. On 20 January 2011, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Alić guilty of war crimes against prisoners of war and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani of Kuwait birth, is the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States which claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people.

Captured in Pakistan in 2003, he has been in United States custody, most recently at Guantanamo Bay, ever since. Mohammed, along with four other 9/11 planners, were charged and tried before a United States Military Commission in 2008 until charges were dropped in 2010. Following a failed attempt to transfer the five co-defendants to new York to stand trial before a civilian federal court, they were indicted once again in February 2011. Their trial is currently underway before the Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay.

Ahmad al-Y. was convicted of two crimes: the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity and participation in a terrorist organisation. The court holds that the accused fought alongside Ahrar al-Sham in the Syrian Civil War and considers this organisation to have terrorist intent. Therefore, the accused is convicted for participation in a terrorist organisation.

The court finds the accused also guilty of the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity. Al-Y. can be seen in a video alongside other fighters celebrating a battlefield victory around a deceased person and putting his foot on the body of the deceased person. This conduct, in combination with other acts of the accused in the video, is humiliating and degrading enough to meet the threshold of this crime. In another video, in which the accused is roughly interrogating a captured soldier, this threshold is not met.

Ahmad al-Y. is sentenced to a combined six years of imprisonment, which is a relatively low sentence due to mitigating circumstances.

The case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), represents a landmark legal proceeding focused on the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an Islamist militant, was charged with the war crime of deliberately attacking historic and religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012. These sites, revered for their historical and cultural significance, were targeted during a period of armed conflict in the region. 

Al Mahdi's case is notable for several reasons. Firstly, it was one of the first instances where an individual was prosecuted at the ICC solely for the destruction of cultural heritage. This underscored the increasing international recognition of the importance of preserving cultural history amidst armed conflicts. Secondly, Al Mahdi's admission of guilt – a rare occurrence in international criminal law – expedited the legal proceedings and highlighted the potential for reconciliation and acknowledgment of wrongdoing in such contexts. 

Ultimately, Al Mahdi was convicted under Articles 8(2)(e)(iv) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute and was sentenced to nine years in prison. His conviction served as a significant precedent, reinforcing the message that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a serious crime under international law and will not be tolerated.

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing, on behalf of five individuals from Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, Italy and Egypt. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been victims of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme – covert operations whereby individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism were secretly detained, transferred all over the world by “black flights” and taken to “black sites” or secret prisons where they were tortured for years. The role of Jeppesen – a company specialised in the aviation sector, providing navigational information, crew and fleet management solutions, and other services in the sector – in this practice was, allegedly, that the company facilitated the CIA’s black flights, inter alia,by providing airports with false flight plans to conceal all information about the aircrafts.

In first instance, after the U.S. government intervened in the case on the side of Jeppesen, the claim was dismissed immediately as the California District Court found that the state secret doctrine prevented it from reviewing the case. This judgment was partly revoked in appeal when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that defendants had not properly proven that the state secret doctrine was applicable; the case was remanded for rehearing, though. Ultimately, in its 6-5 majority decision of 8 September 2010, the full bench of the Appeals Court ruled that in the current case the state secret doctrine indeed applied, concluding that ruling in the case would be impossible due to substantial information being “privileged” or non-disclosable. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.