Search results

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

On 15 September 2008, Trial Chamber I found Delić guilty of war crimes for his role in the events in the Livade and Kamenica Camps between July and August 1995. Delić appealed the decision but died before the Appeals Chamber could issue a judgment on his appeal. 

The Chamber was faced with two questions. First, whether the death of Delić will terminate the appeals proceedings, and second, whether this termination will render the Trial Chamber's initial judgment final. 

With regard to the first issue, the Chamber found that it only has jurisdiction when the persons before it are natural persons which implies that they are alive. This means that the death of the appellant will terminate the appeal. As concerns the second issue, now that no appeal judgment could be rendered in this trial because of the death of the appellant, the trial judgment remains in force.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution.

In November 2009, Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal of the case of his case arguing that the nearly five years that Ghailani spent in secret CIA prisons and at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

In July 2010, the District Court found that Ghailani’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated becase, considering all circumstances, the delay did not infringe upon any interest protected by this constitutional right.

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.

A Canadian human rights organization filed a complaint against a Canadian mining company which operated in the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). It does so on behalf of several Congolese victims (and relatives of victims) of violence committed by the army of the DRC in October 2004. Allegedly, Anvil Mining Ltd. provided the army with, for example, jeeps and cars to reach the town of Kilwa, were the human rights violations were committed.

Anvil protested against the complaint filed, arguing that the Court in Québec did not have jurisdiction. The Court disagreed and stated that Anvil’s activities in Québec and the mining activities in the DRC were sufficiently linked for the Court to have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not consider courts in either the DRC or Australia, were the main office was located, more suitable to deal with this case.