Search results

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.   

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s verdict. In its ruling, it devoted most attention to the ‘political question doctrine’ which disallows Courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases which should remain within the realm of other governmental branches. Since the bulldozers had been paid for by the US, the Court reasoned, a ruling on the merits would also be a judicial opinion about important aspects of US foreign policy. Foreign policy should be decided on by the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary, the Court reasoned.    

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case. 

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. 

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

Between April 2012 and January 2013, the armed Islamist groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) took control of Timbuktu, Mali. The current case concerns the acts committed by Mr. Al Hassan who was the chief of the Islamic Police and was involved in the Islamic Court’s work. At the time that Mr. Al Hassan was the Chief of the Islamic Police, he enforced discriminatory laws and committed religious persecution, among other crimes. Through his role in the Islamic Court, Mr. Al Hassan took part in the transfer of accused persons, and implemented the judgments and sentences handed down by the Islamic Court. 

On 26 June 2024, the ICC convicted Mr. Al Hassan of several of the charges brought against him of war crimes and crimes against humanity. During the sentencing judgement, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances of the minor actions taken by Mr. Al Hassan to assist the civilian population in 2012-2013 and his cooperation with the Prosecution at the investigation stage. Mr. Al Hassan was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment on 20 November 2024. The time which Mr. Al Hassan had spent in detention from 28 March 2018 to 20 November 2024, was deducted from his sentence. As such, Mr. Al Hassan will be serving his sentence for committing the war crimes of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, sentencing without due process, and mutilation, as well as the crimes against humanity of torture, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

On 20 July 2007, the US Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The US Government requested a rehearing or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc (before all judges of the Court). On 3 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the US Government’s request. Once more, the Government petitioned for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Court granted, however, the Government’s motion for a leave to file ex parte (which means legal proceedings conducted in the absence of one of the parties) and in camera (that is, legal proceedings conducted in private without the public or the press being present) declarations which can be reviewed by the judges only.