Search results

During IDF operations against terrorist infrastructure in the areas of the Palestinian Authority (“Operation Defensive Wall”), a dispute arose about burial rights. The Palestinian petitioners requested that the IDF be ordered to cease checking and removing the bodies of Palestinians that had been killed during the course of warfare in the Jenin refugee camp, and that the IDF be ordered not to bury those ascertained to be terrorists in the Jordan valley cemetery. Petitioners also requested to acknowledge that the tasks of identifying and removing the bodies were the responsibility of medical teams and the Red Cross, and that the families be allowed to bring their dead to a quick and honorable burial. 

The Supreme Court of Israel held that the government was responsible, under international law, for the location, identification, and burial of the bodies. As such, teams will be assembled for the location, identification and removal of bodies. The government agreed that the Red Cross should participate in these activities and would "positively consider the suggestion" that the Red Crescent also participate, according to the discretion of the Military Commander. Furthermore, it was established that the identification process be completed as quickly as possible, and will ensure the dignity of the dead as well as the security of the forces. At the end of the identification process, the burial stage will begin; the government allowed the Palestinians to do this themselves, as long as they did it in a timely manner and without threatening Israeli security. Also, no differentiation will be made between bodies (e.g. between the bodies of civilians and the bodies of declared terrorists).

As part of an operation to prevent attacks on Israeli citizens, the IDF Military Commander in the West Bank issued several Orders to allow the IDF to detain groups of people for periods up to 18 days without the possibility to appeal to a judge or to consult legal counsel.

The Supreme Court held that the military commander is allowed to detain persons if they are considered to be dangerous to the security, but that this authority should be balanced against the liberty of the individual. The Military Commander’s orders allowed for detainees to be held for a minimum of 12 days without judicial reviews and this was considered by the Court to be illegal. Also, the Court stated that investigations should start in an earlier phase of detention. However, the Court also stated that the IDF could prohibit a detainee for meeting with his lawyer because of security considerations. All in all, the Court struck down the disputed orders. 

Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, by the bias of its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)) caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

Proceedings have commenced and failed against him in the Republic of Chad, Senegal, and most recently in Belgium. The latter State issued an international arrest warrant for Habré in 2005 for charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The request was never complied with; the Court of Appeal of Dakar in Senegal held that Habré enjoyed immunity and it was incompetent to rule on the validity of the arrest warrant for a former Head of State. Belgium instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Senegal was in violation of its obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré under the Convention Against Torture.

The present decision by the ICJ is the culmination of these proceedings. In its decision, the ICJ ruled that Senegal was indeed in breach of its obligations under the Convention and should proceed without further delay to the prosecution of Habré. It cannot rely on its internal law or financial difficulties to evade the implementation of this obligation.

Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.

The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted the unlawful arrest and detention of hundreds of Jewish persons from 1942 until 1944, who were eventually deported and exterminated at Auschwitz. Pursuant to French criminal law, Papon was under an obligation to surrender to the custody of the Court as a result. Having applied for an exemption to the obligation to surrender and having been denied, Papon left France for Switzerland. However, the Swiss authorities extradited Papon. Upon his arrival in France, the Court of Cassation held that Papon had forfeited his right to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the obligation to surrender.

Papon took his case to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the provision in the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided the grounds upon which his right to appeal was forfeited, violated his right of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court agreed and ordered the French State to pay Papon damages.

In its self-declared “War on Terrorism,” the United States began the “High Value Detainee” program, where suspected terrorists would be subjected to special interrogation and detention. The program was managed by the CIA, which detained suspects in secret detention facilities (“black sites”) in cooperation with other foreign governments.

Poland cooperated with the program by allowing the transfer of suspected terrorists through its territory, as well as their detention in a secret facility in Stare Kiejkuty, Poland. An alleged member of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (known as Abu Zubaydah), was held in the Stare Kiejkuty for nine months, where he was subjected to treatment amounting to torture.

The European Court of Human Rights found that as Polish authorities knew what their territory was being used for, Poland shares responsibility for any abuses committed by the CIA on its territory.