Search results

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.

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.

Mr. Hersi was a naturalized Canadian citizen from Somalia living in Toronto. A drycleaner found a USB in Hersi’s security guard uniform containing suspicious documents, such as instructions on how to make explosives as well as various Islamic religious writings. The drycleaner notified the police, and the police investigated Mr. Hersi further using an undercover officer. During these meetings with the undercover officer, Mr. Hersi explained his well-developed plan to join the terrorist organisation Al-Shabaab and suggested that the UC also join.

The Court found Mr. Hersi guilty of (1) attempting to participate in the activities of Al-Shabaab and (2) counselling an undercover officer to participate in Al-Shabaab. The Court then sentenced Mr. Hersi to 10 years in prison, the maximum of 5 years for each of his offenses. Additionally, the Court held that Mr. Hersi be required to serve at least one-half his sentence, as opposed to the typical requirement of one-third of a sentence, before he could be released on parole, given the gravity of the offence and the unlikelihood of Hersi’s rehabilitation.

In 2002, two human rights organisations filed a petition against Israel’s policy to eliminate alleged terrorists by targeted killings. Four years later, the Supreme Court provided a judgment. It acknowledged that Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with terrorist organisations and that therefore, the laws of war should apply. Terrorists, the Court reasoned, are neither combatants nor civilians in the legal sense. The Supreme Court therefore qualified the alleged terrorists as ‘non-legal combatants’. This does not mean, however, that killing these non-legal combatants is always legal. Nor is this always illegal. The Court establishes a framework with four conditions which have to be applied on a case-to-case basis to determine the (il)legality of a targeted killing. The Court reasoned that a targeted killing is only legal if the decision to kill is 1) based on reliable evidence, 2) if there are no other choices to alleviate the danger to Israel’s national security, 3) if the attack is followed by a thorough investigation and 4) if harm to innocent bystanders is limited to the absolute minimum.