Search results

In September 2003, members of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment of the British Armed Forces detained a number of Iraqi individuals in the course of a series of hotel raids in Basra. The detainees were forced to adopt stress positions for prolonged periods of time, they were hooded and handcuffed, they were denied sleep and a particularly egregious method was adopted to ensure that they stayed awake, known as the “choir.” The detainees would be kicked and punched if they fell asleep, in response to which they would cry out in pain, resembling the voice of a choir.

Following an investigation, 7 members of the armed forces were brought before a Court Martial in Wiltshire, including Corporal Donald Payne. Payne was cleared of manslaughter and perverting the course of justice charges but he pleaded guilty to inhuman treatment in violation of the laws of war. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and he was dismissed from service. The case was very well publicised, and Payne became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime under the provisions of the 2001 International Criminal Court Act. The questions that the Court Martial left unanswered later formed the subject of the Baha Mousa Inquiry, named after the detainee who died as a result of his interrogation.

It is well accepted in international law that Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity from prosecution by virtue of the office that they hold. This immunity extends to acts committed in an official capacity whilst in office, after they have left office. In recent years, however, this concept of functional immunity has been challenged by allegations that former government officials have committed international crimes whilst in office. In what has been hailed as a ‘landmark’ decision, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland considered that the former Algerian Minister of Defence, who is charged with having committed war crimes and torture whilst in office in 1992-1993, is not entitled to immunity before the Swiss courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that it would be contrary for international law to prohibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as fundamental norms but then to allow for a broad interpretation of functional immunity the result of which would be that beneficiaries of this immunity would be immune from prosecution even where they allegedly committed such crimes. 

Ms. Shannon Conley has pleaded guilty before US courts to having tried to travel to Syria in order to join and provide support to Al Qaeda / ISIS. Ms. Conley met her fiancé, a jihadi fighter associated with these groups, online and they shared a belief in violent jihad. She subsequently planned to join him and the terrorist group, and arranged to receive some training in weapons and military tactics. However, Ms. Conley was arrested prior to her departure on a flight to Turkey in April 2014 and was sentenced in 2015 to 4 years’ imprisonment.   

The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.

On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.

The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.

In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.