Latest news
18 April 2012
Lawyers representing a Libyan military commander, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, initiated legal action against Jack Straw (former British foreign secretary, now a Labour MP) after reports suggested he had signed documents that allowed the military commander to be sent back to Libya in 2004.
Mr. Belhadj, then leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), opposing the Gaddafi regime, claims CIA agents took him and his wife from Thailand to Gaddafi-led Libya, via UK-controlled Diego Garcia. Mr Belhadj and his wife allege Mr Straw was complicit in the “torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, batteries and assaults” they say were perpetrated on them by Thai and US agents, as well as Libyan authorities.
UK ministers have denied any complicity in rendition or torture. A police investigation into the UK’s alleged role in illegal rendition is ongoing.
Source: The Guardian | Jack Straw faces legal action over Libya rendition claims
Source: BBC | Jack Straw faces legal action over 'rendition'
16 April 2012
A German owned ship suspected of carrying arms for the Syrian military was diverted about 80 km southwest of the Syrian port of Tartus. The ship was chartered by a Ukranian company and purportedly loaded the arms in Dijbouti. Syria is currently under an arms embargo imposed by the European Union.
Source: Euronews | Germany investigates report ship carrying arms to Syria
16 April 2012
A confidential NATO assessment concluded that the NATO allies struggled to share crucial target information, lacked specialized planners and analysts, and overly relied on the United States for reconnaissance and refueling aircraft.
Source: New York Times | NATO Sees Flaws in Air Campaign Against Qaddafi
13 April 2012
On April 06, 2012, on the 18th Anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, the President of the U.S. Barack Obama issued a statement in which he refers to the ‘haunting’ memory of the extermination of about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. He further mentions a shared responsibility of all States to protect populations and to prevent the occurrence of genocide. More specifically, he affirms that the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide ‘reminds the nations of the world of our shared responsibility to do all we can to protect civilians and to ensure that evil of this magnitude never happens again’.
Source: The White House | Statement by the President on the 18th Anniversary of the Genocide in Rwanda
13 April 2012
Today, the Dutch Supreme Court affirmed the Hague Court of Appeal’s decision that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the Mothers of Srebrenica against the United Nations. The Mothers of Srebrenica instigated proceedings before Dutch courts against both the Netherlands and the United Nations, claiming they had failed to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica.
The plaintiff’s submission that UN immunity should be set aside in order to ensure the right to a fair trial in Article 6 ECHR was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in relying on the criteria in the ECtHR cases Beer and Regan and Waite and Kennedy in order to evaluate whether UN immunity should be set aside for the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the immunity of the United Nations is absolute, and that obligations under the UN Charter should prevail over obligations arising from other international agreements according to Article 103 UN Charter. In this context, the Supreme Court followed the ECtHR’s decision in Behrami and Saramati.
The plaintiff’s submission that in case of breaches of peremptory norms the UN is not entitled to immunity was also rejected. In order to support its decision that rules of ius cogens do not set aside rules on immunity, the Supreme Court referred to the ICJ’s recent judgment in the case Germany v. Italy.
The Mothers’ claim against the Netherlands is yet to be considered in first instance.
Source: Washington Post | Dutch court rules United Nations has immunity in Srebrenica massacre case