Search results

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.

In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions. The legal provisions which suspended this right were found to be unconstitutional. Also, all previous Guantanamo detainees'  corpus petitions were found to be eligible for reinstatement. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the grounds that the United States has unilateral control over Guantanamo Bay and, therefore, the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts.

The armed conflict in Sierra Leone, from 1991 until 2002, opposed members of the Revolutionary United Front and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council to Civil Defense Forces, loyal to the ousted President Kabbah. The hostilities were characterised by brutality as civilians and peacekeepers were targeted. In particular, young women were forced to become ‘bush wives’ for rebels, and children were recruited not only to fight in the hostilities, but also as bodyguards, cooks, cleaners, and spies.

Trial Chamber I of the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, as high-ranking members of the RUF, for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In particular, this decision was the first time that an international criminal tribunal entered convictions for forced marriage as a crime against humanity separate from sexual slavery. The Chamber also defined active participation in hostilities broadly so that the crime of using children to actively participate in the hostilities would extend to more children in different roles, for which their perpetrators could be punished. 

In August 1998, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.

El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries filed a petition to the Court of Appeals asking for the case to be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court). On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals granted their petition, ordering that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc and vacating the earlier judgment of 27 March 2009.

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shaifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plan had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries raised a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions) in asking the Court to adjudge on the President’s powers to designate as enemy property the private property of the chemical plant in Sudan.

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the case raised a political question, and therefore barring the court from hearing the matter.

On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals ordered that the case be re-heard by the court sitting en banc (where the case is heard before all judges of the court).

On 8 June 2010, the Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of El-Shifa’s claims on the grounds that the question brought before the Court remained a political question despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to characterize the case differently. Accordingly, the claims could not be heard by the court.