Search results

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeal found that the Geneva Convention was not judicially enforceable so Hamdan cannot rely on it before the federal courts. The Court continued that, even if it were, Hamdan was not entitled to its protection because the Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda members. Hamdan’s trial could proceed before a military commission. 

As part of the operation to erect a wall in the West Bank, Israel constructed a wall around the Alfei Menashe settlement between 2002 and 2003. This wall also circumscribed five Palestinian villages, the residents of which filed a petition to have the wall removed.

The Supreme Court stated that the military commander of the West Bank had the authority to decide on the erection of a fence, but only if this is necessary for security or military considerations. Also, these security or military considerations had to be proportionate to the infringement on the rights of the Palestinians. In this case, the effects of the wall on everyday life of the residents of the Palestinian villages were so severe that alternatives should have been considered. This had not been the case, the Court stated. Therefore, it ordered the respondents to consider alternatives. 

Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat was a Dutch businessman who, from 1984 until 1988, purchased large quantities of the chemical thiodiglycol from the United States and Japan. This chemical was then sold, through a number of different companies located in different countries, to Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq. After 1984, Van Anraat was the government’s sole supplier of the chemical. The chemical is a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas and was in fact used for this purpose by Hussein’s government who then proceeded to employ the gas in attacks against Iranian military and civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The effect was devastating, thousands of individuals were killed and many thousands more were injured with long-term effects including blindness and cancer.

The present case before the District Court of The Hague was brought by the Dutch Prosecutor against Van Anraat, a chemicals dealer who sold thiodiglycol to Saddam Hussein’s regime, which was used in the production of mustard gas. He was acquitted of the charge of complicity to genocide because it was not proven that at the time Van Anraat knew that the chemical would be used for the destruction of the Kurdish population. He was, however, convicted of complicity in war crimes and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

Marko Samardžija was the commander of the 3rd Company of the Sanica Battalion within the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. He has been accused of ordering soldiers under his command that the Bosniak (Muslim) men from the settlements of Brkići and Balagića Brdo (in the Ključ Municipality) leave their houses. Men older than 18 and younger than 60 were then consequently murdered in groups of 5 to 10. This resulted in the deaths of at least 144 Bosniak men.

While taking into account the ICTY and ICTR case law, and while pointing out that the issue of legality was not violated, the Court determined that Samardžija assisted in the commission of crimes against humanity. As a result, on 3 November 2006, the Trial Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Marko Samardžija guilty of crimes against humanity (murder) and sentenced him to 26 years’ imprisonment

In 2002, two human rights organisations filed a petition against Israel’s policy to eliminate alleged terrorists by targeted killings. Four years later, the Supreme Court provided a judgment. It acknowledged that Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with terrorist organisations and that therefore, the laws of war should apply. Terrorists, the Court reasoned, are neither combatants nor civilians in the legal sense. The Supreme Court therefore qualified the alleged terrorists as ‘non-legal combatants’. This does not mean, however, that killing these non-legal combatants is always legal. Nor is this always illegal. The Court establishes a framework with four conditions which have to be applied on a case-to-case basis to determine the (il)legality of a targeted killing. The Court reasoned that a targeted killing is only legal if the decision to kill is 1) based on reliable evidence, 2) if there are no other choices to alleviate the danger to Israel’s national security, 3) if the attack is followed by a thorough investigation and 4) if harm to innocent bystanders is limited to the absolute minimum.