Search results

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the men filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the Government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US Government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba). The District Court granted the motion.

In the present decision of 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The case is the first time that the standard laid out in Bensayah v. Obama et al. has been applied concerning the requirement for the government to demonstrate evidence that an enemy combatant is “part of” a terrorist organisation.

The heirs of a Palestinian landowner and the council of a Palestinian town sue two Canadian companies in Québec, claiming that by carrying out Israeli construction orders, they are assisting Israel in war crimes. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the claim, stating that the Israeli High Court of Justice would be a more suitable place to argue this case. The Court of Appeal confirmed this, most importantly stating that this case essentially revolved around citizens from the West Bank and corporations carrying out work in the West Bank. Therefore, the Court held, it would require ‘a great deal of imagination to claim that the action has a serious connection with Quebec’. 

The claimants in this case claimed that they were victims of severe atrocities at the hands of the colonial government during the struggle for independence in Kenya. They argued that the British government carried responsibility for this. In this phase of the proceedings, the British government basically argued that the events in Kenya happened too long ago to be considered on trial. The Court rejected this argument, stating that British law allowed Courts to let cases proceed which happened a long time ago. Moreover, the Court held that there were sufficient primary sources to establish what took place in the detention camps in Kenya and the UK Government’s involvement in this matter.  

From April 1975 to January 1979 the Khmer Rouge committed numerous crimes to create their socialist state. Case 002/02 was limited to prosecuting the crimes that occurred at security centers and worksites, including the executions of enemies and elites, forced marriages, and other inhumane treatment. In addition, the case included the genocide of the Vietnamese, who were fighting the Khmer Rouge forces, and the Cham peoples, who were persecuted for their religious and ethnic identity.

On 16 November 2018 the Trial Chamber found Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan guilty of crimes against humanity (including rape, forced marriage, and murder), grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide of the Vietnamese. The Chamber also convicted Nuon Chea of the genocide of the Cham peoples.

The accused were found guilty based on their leadership roles within the Communist Party of Kampuchea; Khieu Samphan had various roles, including President of the State Presidium, and Nuon Chea was the Deputy Secretary of the party. The Trial Chamber ruled that the accused failed to prevent and punish the crimes that occurred, even though they knew or had reason to know the crimes were being carried out.

Both accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.