Search results

The District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch State acted unlawfully by executing a large amount of the male population in Rawagedeh without trial on 9 December 1947, during the Indonesian War for Independence. It required the Dutch State to award compensations to plaintiffs 1 to 7, but not to plaintiff 8 and the Foundation.

This was a landmark ruling, as it marked the first time that the Dutch government has been held responsible by a court for a committed massacre. On 9 December 2011, the Dutch government publicly apologised to Indonesia for the massacre through Tjeerd de Zwaan, the Dutch ambassador in Indonesia. None of the soldiers involved in the massacre have ever been prosecuted. Both sides have given different estimations regarding the amount of people killed, with the Netherlands stating that 150 people were killed, whereas the victims’ association puts this number as high as 431.

Nikola Andrun, born on 22 November 1957, was during the second half of 1993 a deputy head of the Gabela detention camp in the municipality of Čapljina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) where Bosniak civilians were detained. As deputy head, Andrun took detainees out of the Gabela detention camp on several occasions and subjected them to interrogations, beatings and acts of torture. Between July and September 1993, numerous incidents of detainee abuse took place during which Andrun was present, either as an observer or as a direct participant. Some of the detainees disappeared but their remains were later exhumed and identified.

Andrun was found guilty for war crimes against Bosniak civilians and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

A and others versus the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) is the first of two House of Lords opinions in about a year time that urged the U.K. to change its laws on the treatment of and criminal proceedings against terrorism suspects. The current case revolved around nine defendants – Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou and seven unnamed individuals, all foreign (non-U.K.) nationals living in the U.K. – who were detained without trial in the Belmarsh prison because they were linked to terrorist organisations and, therefore, constituted threats to national security. Since none of them has been the subject of any criminal charge they challenged the lawfulness of their detention as violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The House of Lords opined that the possibility of indefinite detention of foreign nationals indeed breached Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. On the other hand, it agreed with the government’s standpoint that constant terrorism threats could constitute an immediate danger and imminent threat to national security; such public emergency is a lawful basis to derogate from Article 5 (see Article 15 ECHR). However, in the current case the measures were disproportionate by nature and discriminatory in their effect (national terrorist suspects were not affected, while foreign suspects could be detained indefinitely – unless they would voluntarily leave the country, in which case they were free to go). Therefore, the House of Lords decided that section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of foreign suspects who could not leave the U.K. (for example because they would be tortured in their own country) was declared incompatible with the U.K.’s international human rights obligations enshrined in the ECHR.

Mr. Shazib Khan was found guilty by a jury verdict for planning to travel to Syria and join Islamic State in Levant, a terrorist organisation. In preparation for the travel, Mr. Khan had purchased items for use in Syria and he had also expressed his desire for martyrdom to others who had previously joined ISIL. His case was heard alongside that of his older nephew, Mr. Junead Khan, and he was later sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the Navy-Marine Corps Court Trial Judiciary rendered a judgment, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCTJ ruled that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of “unlawful command influence”. According to the NMCTJ, the presence of someone with Ewers’ reputation, who had strong views regarding Chessani’s guilt, could have influenced the prosecutor and legal advisers. Therefore, charges against him were dismissed.