Search results

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

Members of the Herero (the Hereros), an African tribe from Namibia, brought a claim against German company Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co. The Hereros claimed that this company used slave labor and ran its own concentration camp during Germany’s occupation of South Africa in the late 19th- and early 20th- century. The Hereros sued the German company for damages suffered during the occupation.

The case was dismissed by the District Court because the Hereros failed to state a claim in their complaint. On 10 April 2007, the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Fofana and Kondewa were high-ranking members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF) who participated in the armed conflict in Sierra Leone on the side of the ousted government of President Kabbah. They were convicted by the Special Court for aiding and abetting the planning of war crimes by CDF forces, particularly murder, cruel treatment, burning of civilian property, collective punishment and, for Kondewa, enlisting child soldiers.

On appeal, the Appeals Chamber found that there was sufficient evidence to convict both men for crimes against humanity. However, the convictions for collective punishment and enlistment of child soldiers were overturned. At sentencing, in order to reflect the gravity of the crimes and the new conviction for crimes against humanity, the Appeals Chamber increased the sentences: Fofana’s from 6 years to 15 years, Kondewa’s from 8 years to 20 years. The Appeals Chamber refused to take into account the political motives of Fofana and Kondewa, and particularly that they were fighting for a just cause in order to restore President Kabbah to power. 

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.

Sesay, Kallon and Gbao were all high-ranking members of the RUF, who were convicted by Trial Chamber I for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sesay received a sentence of 52 years’ imprisonment, Kallon 40 years and Gbao 25 years. On appeal, the Appeals Chamber upheld the sentences despite complaints about their length and the incorrect approach of the Trial Chamber. In particular, the Appeals Chamber made some important findings as to the law applicable for defining a common plan in a joint criminal enterprise and the requirements for the crime of hostage taking. 

On 14 February 2005, a bomb in downtown Beirut exploded, killing 22 people, including the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established by the Security Council in order to prosecute persons responsible for the bombing.

In its interlocutory decision, the Appeals Chamber interpreted the STL Statute to require application of substantive Lebanese law as applied by Lebanese courts, but not before noting that binding international obligations, including customary international law, should inform any such interpretation. The Appeals Chamber held, inter alia, that not only does a customary rule exists between states to suppress terrorist act, but that terrorism is an individual international crime under customary law.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Appeals Chamber examined state practice and binding international covenants to assert that the crime of terrorism is “commonly accepted at the international level.” As such, the Chamber derived the key components in formulating a general definition of terrorism: (1) the perpetration of a criminal act; (2) the intent to spread fear among the population or coerce a national or international authority to take some action; (3) and the act involves a transnational element.  For the first time, a tribunal of international character has established the existence of a customary rule of international law recognizing an international crime of terrorism in times of peace.