Court Watch
flict, the safeguards under the Convention contin- ued to apply. However, they are interpreted against the background provisions of international humani- tarian law, and therefore, “the grounds of permit- ted deprivation of liberty set out under Article 5 should be accommodated, as far as possible, with the takings of prisoners of war and the detention of civilians who pose a risk to security under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.”
In its determination that the capture and detention of Hassan was not arbitrary, the Court determined the U.K. authorities had acted in accordance with the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions when they detained him, as a prisoner of war, based on evidence and imperative reasons of security. Furthermore, soon after his detention, Hassan was cleared for release following a screening pro- cess which included two interrogations. Lastly, the Court found, according to electronic evidence, that Hassan was properly released on or around 2 May 2003.
6
During a time when there has been significant in- ternational criticism for much of the conduct re-
garding the detention and treatment of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, this decision is evidence the United Kingdom acted within the confines of international law.
* Submitted by Christopher L. Bauer
Arab Bank Verdict Threatens Future Banking Activity
A recent jury verdict in the case of Linde et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC found that Arab Bank provided material support to Hamas and must compensate victims of two-dozen terrorist attacks attributed to the group in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Representatives for the plaintiffs brought the case under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows Americans to claim damages in federal courts for injuries to an individual’s person, property or busi- ness due to acts of international terrorism. While the statute is broadly written, this is the first jury verdict against a bank for its alleged role in provid- ing assistance to terrorists.
The victims’ attorneys argued that Arab Bank had knowingly provided assistance to Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, the European Union, and other na- tions around the world. They presented evidence showing Arab Banks involvement in channeling money to Hamas leaders and their families.
The plaintiffs also presented evidence of the Bank’s involvement with the Saudi Committee, a charity that the plaintiffs argued sent money to families of Hamas suicide bombers. A Saudi Committee spreadsheet used as evidence listed names of martyrs and beneficiaries. Plaintiffs also presented an Arab-language newspaper instructing relatives of the martyrs to pick up payments at their local Arab Bank branch.
Arab Bank countered the evidence presented by the victims’ lawyers by stating that it properly screened for terrorists and immediately closed off the account of an individual identified as a Hamas
ILSA Quarterly » volume 23 » issue 2 » December 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88