Search results

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55^th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit. Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Al Bihani’s appeal.

Al Bihani appealed the decision arguing that he was entitled to a rehearing. A seven-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the rehearing and upheld the decision that international law does not limit the President’s powers of detention and consequently al Bihani’s detention is lawful. However, all seven Circuit judges appended opinions demonstrating the importance of the question at hand and their separate reasoning.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) was founded in 1976 in response to the growing feeling amongst the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka during the 1960s and 1970s that they were discriminated against by the Singhalese majority. Ultimately, a comflict ensued that developed into a guerilla war opposing the LTTE to the Singhalese with the objective of attaining independence for the Tamil minority.

The present case concerns one of five ethnic Tamils, all naturalised Dutch citizens, charged by the Public Prosecutor of membership in the LTTE and having funded its activities from The Netherlands. In the course of the trial before the District Court of The Hague, the court found that the defendant was a leader of the Tamil Coordinating Committee in The Netherlands, and therefore a member of the LTTE itself. The defendant had undertaken various fundraising activities through the sale of lottery tickets, collecting donations at meetings and extorting money from Tamils living in The Netherlands. Having identified the LTTE as a criminal organisation, in line with US, Indian, EU and Canadian policy, the Court convicted the defendant of membership in and participating in the LTTE and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military took control of the Abu Ghraib prison located near Baghdad, using it to detain criminals, enemies of the provisional government, and other persons thought to possess information regarding the anti-Coalition insurgency. The U.S. contracted with CACI International, Incorporated (with CACI Premier Technology, Incorporated, together referred to as CACI), and Titan Corporation, now L-3 Services, Incorporated (L-3), to provide civilian employees to assist the military in communicating with and interrogating the latter group of detainees. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they ended up torturing or unlawfully killing people. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc. and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3, a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a US citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 at the Abu Ghraib prison. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also allege that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint. The Court rejected the motions on 29 June 2010, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

Defendants appealed the decision to reject their motions, to which plaintiffs responded that U.S. appeals courts have no jurisdiction to rule on their appeals since the underlying case was not decided yet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District disagreed: it found that the current issue was of great public importance so that, since the District Court had given a final decision on defendants’ immunity, it was entitled to jurisdiction. Now that it could exercise jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals quashed the District Court’s decision in its entirety and remanded it with instructions for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim.

It is well accepted in international law that Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity from prosecution by virtue of the office that they hold. This immunity extends to acts committed in an official capacity whilst in office, after they have left office. In recent years, however, this concept of functional immunity has been challenged by allegations that former government officials have committed international crimes whilst in office. In what has been hailed as a ‘landmark’ decision, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland considered that the former Algerian Minister of Defence, who is charged with having committed war crimes and torture whilst in office in 1992-1993, is not entitled to immunity before the Swiss courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that it would be contrary for international law to prohibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as fundamental norms but then to allow for a broad interpretation of functional immunity the result of which would be that beneficiaries of this immunity would be immune from prosecution even where they allegedly committed such crimes.