456 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 46 of
92
next >
last >>
Russia v. Zakaev: The Government of the Russian Federation v. Akhmed Zakaev
Judgment, 23 Nov 2003, Bow Street Magistrates' Court, Great Britain (UK)
Akhmed Zakaev was an envoy of the Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov. Zakaev was arrested in the UK in 2002 and his extradition was requested by the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation alleged that during the First Chechen War (1994-1996), Zakaev committed murder, wounding, false imprisonment (imprisonment not made in accordance with the law), and conspiring. On 13 November 2003, the Bow Street Magistrates' Court declined to extradite Zakaev because the Court feared he would be subjected to torture and would not receive a fair trial if he would be brought back to the Russian Federation.
El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States of America
Decision, 11 Aug 2004, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States
In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.
In March 2003, the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaints as non-justiciable based on the ‘political question doctrine’ (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions).
In August 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the complaints raised a non-justiciable political question. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of the fact that the President is entrusted by the Constitution to render as enemy property the private property of an alien situated in a foreign country.
Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.
Memorandum and Order, 16 Feb 2006, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States
In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.
On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law.
Public Committee v. Government of Israel
Judgment, 13 Dec 2006, Supreme Court of Israel, Israel
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.
Bektašević et al.: Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović,Senad Hasanović
Verdict, 10 Jan 2007, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts, including a suicide bombing attack in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.
<< first
< prev
page 46 of
92
next >
last >>