Search results

Zoran Marić, a former soldier in the Army of Republika Srpska, was indicted by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) on suspicion of involvement in war crimes committed in 1992, during the armed conflict between the Army of Republika Srpska and, on the other hand, BiH and the Croatian Defense Council (HVO). Marić was charged with co-perpetration – together with fellow soldiers – of torture, inhumane treatment and murder of Bosniak civilians. Although he initially pleaded not guilty, he came to a plea agreement with the prosecutor, pleading guilty to the crimes he was indicted for. The Court of BiH, after evaluating the evidence, found the agreement acceptable and sentenced Marić to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

Belkacem Bensayah, an Algerian national, was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovine in 2001 on the suspicion of plotting an attack against the United States Embassy in Sarajevo. Together with five other Algerians, Bensayah was turned over to the United States Government and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). Bensayah was one of the plaintiffs in the Boumediene case, in the context of which, the Supreme Court of the United States found, in 2008, that Guantanamo detainees have a right to petition writs of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detainees to challenge the legality of their detention).

In November 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of five of the six plaintiffs. Bensayah, the sixth plaintiff, was denied release.

On 28 June 2010, the District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court, finding that the evidence against Bensayah must be reviewed since the Government changed its position and the evidence upon which the District Court relied in concluding that Bensayah supported the Al-Qaeda is now insufficient to show that he was also part of the organization.

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

Manickavasagam Suresh fled from Sri Lanka to Canada, was granted a refugee status there, but was ultimately denied a permanent status as it was alleged that he supported the Tamil Tigers. Since Canada considered the Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organisation, it started the procedure to deport Suresh to Sri Lanka. Suresh went to court, stating, among other things, that deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement. The Court disagreed, stating, most importantly, that the Minister was allowed to enter into a balancing act between national security and Suresh’s individual rights. The Court did not consider the result of this balancing act to be unreasonable, given the evidence of the Tamil Tigers’ activities and Suresh role therein. Also, the Court stated that Suresh had not established ‘substantial grounds’ that he would be subjected to torture. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected.