Search results

This case marks the beginning in a series of proceedings before the British courts with regard to the (existence of a) duty to investigate alleged widespread torture and abuse of Iraqis by British troops during Iraq’s occupation, lasting from 2003 until 2008. The claimant in Mousa v. UK, Ali Zaki Mousa, represents about 100 Iraqis – with the possible addition of 100 more after intervention – who were allegedly tortured or otherwise ill-treated during their detention at British military bases in Iraq, often without being charged (many of them were allegedly released after a period of time without any information on the reasons for either their detention or release). The claimants asked the High Court of Justice to order the Secretary of State for Defence to start investigations into the alleged misconduct. The Court agreed with him, finding that the current investigating bodies were too much intertwined with the army itself and did not constitute independent bodies of judicial review, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, the Secretary of State was ordered to initiate proper investigations.

Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al Jedda was born in Iraq but went to the UK in 1992 where he was granted British citizenship in June 2000. In October 2004, Al Jedda was arrested after travelling to Iraq because he was suspected of being a member of a terrorist organisation being responsible for attacks in Iraq. Al Jedda was detained in a military detention centre in Basra, Iraq, by British forces until 30 December 2007. Eventually, no charges were filed against Al Jedda. On 14 December 2007, shortly before his release, Al Jedda was deprived of his British citizenship.

Al Jedda’s claim for damages for his unlawful detention in the period between May 2006 and December 2007, was refused by the Court of Appeal on 8 June 2010 on the ground that his detention had not violated any laws under the Iraqi Constitution.

The applicants were relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed by the British forces in Iraq in 2003. The applicants brought a claim against the Secretary of State because he refused to investigate the deaths and to provide redress to them as relatives of the deceased Iraqi’s. Their claim was dismissed on 13 June 2007 by the House of Lords. In dismissing the case, the House of Lords held that the crimes were committed outside the UK’s territory, and therefore, the Court did not have power to adjudicate (jurisdiction).

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. The District Court acquitted Kouwenhoven of war crimes in first instance, stating that the link between him and those who actually committed the crimes was insufficiently substantiated. However, Kouwenhoven was convicted for his involvement in illegally supplying Taylor with weapons. According to the Court there was sufficient evidence that ships, owned by the OTC, within which Kouwenhoven held a prominent position, shipped weapons into the port of Buchanan, which was managed by OTC. These acts, the Court reasoned, did not only violate Dutch laws but also the international legal order. Given the serious consequences of supplying the Taylor regime with weapons, Kouwenhoven was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment: the maximum sentence. 

The present case concerns a claim presented by Isabelle Coe on behalf of the Wiradjuri Kooris. The Wiradjuri people are an Aboriginal tribe who are alleged to have continously lived on and occupied the land now known as central New South Wales, in whole or in part, according to their laws, customs, traditions and practices since at least the early 18th Century. In part, the claim alleges that the Commonwealth of Australia and subsequently the State of New South Wales acquired the land illegally through acts of unprovoked and unjustified aggression including murder, acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The High Court of Australia struck out the plaintiff’s claim on the ground (amongst others) that the High Court of Australia cannot exercise jurisdiction over acts of genocide (a) absent domestic legislation implementing the 1948 Genocide Convention and (b) where the defendant was not a party to the alleged acts.