Search results

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.

On 4 November 2005, a complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of people injured or killed during the bombing of the UN compound (an area protected by the UN) in Qana on 18 April 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians and wounding hundreds. The plaintiffs claimed that General Moshe Ya’alon, the head of the IDF Army Intelligence who launched the bombing, should be held responsible for the decision to bomb the UN compound.

On 14 December 2006, the District Court dismissed the case, finding that Ya'alon could not be sued because the Court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Ya’alon (as he enjoyed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and denied the need for jurisdictional discovery.

On 15 February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision of the District Court.

In March 1997, members of the Sierra Leone Army overthrew the government of President Kabbah and installed a new government, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council.

Brima, Kamara and Kanu were high-ranking members of the AFRC who were convicted by Trial Chamber II of the Special Court for Sierra Leone of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In particular, they ordered, committed, planned or were responsible as superiors for the murders, beatings, mutilations, rapes, forced marriages, abductions, looting, collective punishments and recruitment of child soldiers perpetrated by the AFRC forces. They were sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment (Brima and Kanu) and 45 years’ imprisonment (Kamara). On appeal, the Appeals Chamber upheld the convictions and the sentencing, despite protests from the Accused that the terms of imprisonment were excessively harsh. The Chamber also made legal findings with respect to forced marriage, finding that it is a distinct crime against humanity from sexual slavery, a novelty in international criminal law. 

During the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, the United States sprayed toxic herbicides in areas of South Vietnam. Herbicides were considered effective in meeting important US and allied military objectives in Vietnam. Vietnamese nationals and a Vietnamese organisation representing the victims of Agent Orange brought a case before US court against several US-registered companies that were deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War. They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides.

The Plaintiffs brought the case to court under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants the district courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien claiming damages for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty of the United States. They also asserted claims grounded in domestic tort law. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

The District court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of international law because Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) was used to protect United States troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations. On 22 February 2008, the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision.

During the war in the Former Yugoslavia, Idhan Sipic was a member of the Reconnaissance and Sabotage Commando Company, which was part of the 5th Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On an unspecified day in mid-September 2005, in the territory of the Kljuc Municipality, Sipic entered the house of an elderly woman of Serb ethnicity, Anja Banjac and killed her with a bayonet by stabbing her in the neck.

Sipic was charged with war crimes against civilians, specifically murder. The Court found him guilty of this crime. The Court reasoned that Anja Banjac was without a doubt a civilian, killing civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law; the crime was perpetrated during the war and had a clear connection to the war. Sipic was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, which was a significantly mild sentence. The Court took as an extenuating circumstance that Sipic admitted to the crime.