“The, presumably forcible, transfer of Mr Rahmatullah from Iraq to Afghanistan is, at least prima facie, a breach of article 49. On that account alone, his continued detention post-transfer is unlawful…….Instead he has been imprisoned by the U.S.A., which takes a different view of the requirements of international law, and accepts no limitations on its right to detain in these circumstances….”-written statement from Supreme Court judges, Lord Carnwath and Lady Hale.
“The U.K. government has nowhere left to turn. The highest court in the country has expressed serious concerns that grave war crimes may have been committed as a result of which a police investigation must be initiated without delay.”-Kat Craig, a legal director of activist organization Reprieve
“The government’s attempts to row back on centuries of constitutional development and restrict the reach of habeas corpus has been rejected by the highest court in the land!”-Jamie Beagent, attorney representing a man who was renditioned out of Iraq in 2004, and is still under U.S. control at Bagram Prison, Afghanistan
On 31 October 2012, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled that the ongoing rendition of so called enemy combatants by the United States, is a war crime!
The court opinion came after a group trying to get a man freed from eight years of secret imprisonment failed. The group called Reprieve, petitioned the British high court to force the United States to make the man available so they can challenge the legality of his imprisonment in court.
The man, from Pakistan, was detained by British troops in Iraq in 2004. The Red Coats handed him over to U.S. forces, who then secretly sent him to Bagram Prison in Afghanistan.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that no enemy combatant can be taken to another country while detained. The group Reprieve wants the U.S. to explain why they violated the Geneva Convention, if the man was considered an enemy combatant.
If the man was not considered an enemy then they want to know on what grounds the U.S. continues to detain him (if he’s even still alive).
The U.K. court refused Reprieve’s request to force the British government to demand the United States explain itself, but did agree that the policy of rendition, carried out under a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and U.K., is illegal under international law: “This powerful [U.K.] Supreme Court decision has huge ramifications. Clearly there will now have to be a full criminal investigation. But if the U.S. has ‘dishonored’ its commitment to the U.K. in this case for the first time in 150 years, and continues to violate law as basic as the Geneva Conventions, this also throws other extradition agreements with the U.K. into doubt.”-Clive Stafford Smith, director & founder of Reprieve