Search results

In March 2003, a military coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coalition forces remained in Iraq as an occupying force, engaging in the process of rebuilding the country. During the occupation, the US military contracted with several private military contractors for a wide array of services the US military simply had no manpower for, due to the implications of the occupation and rebuilding process. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they were hired to supervise detention centres or to provide security services and ended up torturing or unlawfully killing civilians. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc., and the current case Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Services Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3 Services, Inc., a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a U.S. citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 Services at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 Services and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also alleged that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 Services and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 Services and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint.

The Court disagreed with defendants. On 29 June 2010, it rejected the motions to dismiss, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

On 9 November 2004, Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was serving in  Iraq as a member of the US Armed Forces. Nazario was leading a squad of 13 Marines on house-to-house searches. During these searches, Nazario allegedly killed two Iraqis, and encouraged two squad members to shoot two others. The alleged acts took place in Fallujah, Iraq.

In 2007, Jose Louis Nazario was brought before the US District Court in California. He was the first veteran to be tried in a civilian US court for alleged war crimes in Iraq.

The defence argued that there was no evidence of a deceased person, nor had the government provided a name or a sufficient description of any of the alleged victims. Deliberating in less than six hours, the jury found Nazario not guilty of manslaughter or assault. Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was acquitted on all charges on 28 August 2008.

In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.

Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.

In the present decision, the Supreme Court of The Netherlands rejected the appeal of the Public Prosecutor against the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague. The Supreme Court confirmed that Dutch Courts have no jurisdiction over the crime of genocide allegedly committed by the Accused. This does not, however, bar prosecution of the Accused for war crimes and torture.

Tharcisse Renzaho was a Rwandan army officer and waspromoted to the rank of Colonel in July 1992. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, he was Prefect of Kigali-Ville prefecture.

The Prosecution had charged him with genocide, crime against humanity, and war crimes for his role in the relevant events of 1994. On 14 July 2009, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Renzaho for genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity, and murder and rape as war crimes. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Renzaho appealed the judgment on thirteen grounds. He requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn the Trial judgment, acquit him on all counts of the indictment, and order his immediate release. In the alternative, Renzaho requested the Appeals Chamber to a lower sentence that would reflect his true level of responsibility.

The Appeals Chamber granted some of Renzaho’s grounds of appeal and dismissed others. It affirmed Renzaho’s sentence of life imprisonment, subject to credit being given to time already served.