Search results

In September 2007, 14 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20 wounded by employees of Blackwater, a private security company hired by the US to protect government employees. They stated that it was self-defence, but were charged with manslaughter.

They alleged they had made statements under pressure (as they were threatened to be fired if they would not do so). Under US law, these statements are ‘compelled’ and can therefore not be used in criminal proceedings. As these statements appeared in the press, both the prosecution team and witnesses were influenced by them. Therefore, the Court ruled that the rights of the defendants have been inexcusably breached. It dismissed the charges against the defendants. 

Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. In 2005, he filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the person to challenge the legality of his/her detention). In May 2009, the US Government filed a motion requesting the designation as ‘protected’ (meaning that it can be shared only with the counsel of the detainee and the Court) of the decision of the Guantanamo Review Task Force approving Ameziane for a transfer from Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).

On 30 June 2009, the District Court denied the request of the US Government since the Government failed to explain why the disclosure of “this one piece of information”, referring to the Task Force decision, would be harmful. 

On 8 January 2010, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned this decision on the grounds that the District Court applied inappropriately the standard for determining whether the Task Force decision should be designated as ‘protected’.  The Court of Appeals considered that the US Government has met the required standard and, therefore, the District Court should have granted its motion for designation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision.

The petitioners were members of the non-governmental organisation Malaya Lolas, acting on behalf of the so-called ‘comfort women’ who during World War II, in December 1937, were kidnapped from their homes by Japanese soldiers. They were brought to barracks-like buildings where they had to live, and where they were repeatedly beaten, raped and abused. During that time, the young women were forced to have sex with as many as 30 Japanese soldiers per day.

The petitioners filed a case asking for support from the Philippine government in their action against Japan, who had previously rejected claims for compensation. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, refused to oblige the government to provide that support.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the men filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the Government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US Government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba). The District Court granted the motion.

In the present decision of 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The case is the first time that the standard laid out in Bensayah v. Obama et al. has been applied concerning the requirement for the government to demonstrate evidence that an enemy combatant is “part of” a terrorist organisation.