The United States government and their Interim Iraqi government that it installed in Baghdad continues to refuse access to former Iraqi President in violation of his due process rights under international, Iraqi, and United States law.

To challenge the illegality of these actions, an Application for Habeas Corpus has been filed with the United States Supreme Court by the former President. This filing alleges that the United States is violating its own Constitution as well as it military law and international law.

The filing recognizes that the United States aggression against the people of Iraq is illegal and that the occupation is illegal. It focuses, however, on the illegality of the treatment being provided the former President.

The Urgent Application for Habeas Corpus was filed on 29 June 2004 and served on US President George Bush, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and L. Paul Bremer III, US Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

The Application remains pending before the United States Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy that the filing and service on US government officials took place on before the alleged turn over of authority or the appearance of Mr. Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi judge. The United States actions subsequent to being served can thus be construed as an attempt to remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. So viewed, these actions alone by the United States government’s actions are a serious affront to the United States highest judicial body and show a significant disrespect for the rule of law.

The text of the Habeas Corpus Application follows.

Is Petitioner’s incommunicado detention, whereby he is prohibited access to family or to legal counsel, in accordance with law?

Is the turning over of Petitioner to an authority that may reasonably be expected to violate his rights to a fair trial, due process of law, and his right to life in accordance with law?


LIST OF PARTIES

1. Petitioner former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an Iraqi citizen presently incarcerated and held in Respondents' unlawful custody of the United States government. Respondent admit that they hold Petitioner in their custody, but refuse to disclose his location…

2. Respondent Bush is the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military. He ordered the illegal use of force against Iraq, and authorizing the arrest and detention of Petitioner, and is ultimately responsible for his unlawful detention. He is sued in his official and personal capacity.

3. Respondent Rumsfeld is the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense and has his principal office in Arlington, Virginia. Respondent Rumsfeld has been charged with overall responsibility for the conduct of hostilities against Iraq and the maintenance of its de facto occupation of Iraq by United States armed forces, including the custody and control of the detained petitioners. Respondent Rumsfeld is sued in his official and personal capacity.

4. Respondent L. Paul Bremer III is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Respondent Bremer has been charged with the administration of the de facto and de jure occupation of Iraq, including aspects of the custody and control of the detained petitioners. Respondent Bremer is sued in his official and personal capacity.

All three officials have had the opportunity to order and ensure that the Petition is treated in accordance with law, but have failed to do so and have contributed to continued illegal detention of the Petitioner.


JURISDICTION

1. Petitioner brings this action under 28 U.S.C. §§2241(a) and 2242, and invoke this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1350, 1651, 2201, and 2202; 5 U.S.C. §702; as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man ("ADRDM"), the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and Customary International Law. For declaratory relief, Petitioners also rely on F. R. Civ. P. 57.

2. This Court is empowered under 28 U.S.C. §2241 to grant the Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2242. This Court is further empowered to declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties herein by 28 U.S.C. §2201, and to effectuate and enforce declaratory relief by all necessary and proper means by 28 U.S.C. §2202, as this case involves an actual controversy within the Court's jurisdiction.


STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR NOT MAKING APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS HELD

3. Petitioner is admitted to be under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, but his whereabouts are not known. He is probably being detained outside the United States, but even this is not known with certainty. For this reason is impossible for Petitioners to determine the federal District Court that is the proper venue with reasonable certainty.

4. Furthermore, the United States government has threatened to turn Petitioner over to another entity which will seriously threaten the rights of Petitioner under United State law. This action will exclude the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which would otherwise exist.


CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED


5. This case involves 28 U.S.C. §2241 that provides in relevant part:

(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. . . .

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless –

1. He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States …; or
3. He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States….

This case also involves the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV; the Suspension Clause, U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §9, clause 2; Army Regulation 190–8 (Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees), OPNAVINST 3461.6, AFJI 31-304, MCO 3461.1 (1 October 1997); the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 (12 August 1949); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, U.N. G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR. Supp. No. 16, at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966); the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. XX, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rhev.1 at 17 (1992).


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

6. The detained Petitioner is the former President of Iraq. He was driven from power by an armed attack against his country by the United States which was ordered by the Respondents.


* * *


7. On 16 October 2002, a Joint Resolution of Congress authorized the Respondents "to use force Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and … (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Joint Resolution 114, To authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, Public Law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1491 (16 Oct. 2002).

8. The Resolution did not authorize the indefinite detention of persons seized on the field of battle. Although detention of individuals seized in the armed conflict is provided for under and according to article 21 of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Prisoners of War.

9. Iraq, during the time that Petitioner was Head of State, was no direct threat to United States security. In fact at the time of the United States invasion in March 2003, Iraq was cooperating with the United Nations in relation to the inspection and destruction of specified aspect of its national defense system. It now appears, despite representations by the Respondents to the contrary, that Iraq and Petitioner had abided by the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

10. Furthermore, no American casualties were caused by the Iraqi government by acts of aggression directed against the United States under Saddam Hussein’s presidency, prior to, or in the interim between the invasions of Iraq by successive American Presidents. Neither is their any significant evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda.

11. Nevertheless, on 19 March 2003, the United States, at the direction of Respondent Bush, began a massive military campaign against the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government headed by Petitioner.

12. In response Petitioner authorized the use of force against the United States military to repel invasions of his country and in furtherance of his responsibilities as the Head of State of Iraq to protect the territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq from foreign invasion. These actions were taken in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations which provides for the right of self-defense.

13. The invasion that led to the arrest of Petitioner, on the other hand, was not in accordance with international law. It was a violation of the seminal Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a country.


Petitioners' Seizure By The United States

14. Approximately nine months after the invasion by which the United States and allied force occupied Iraq, on or around 13 December 2003, the United States captured Petitioner in Iraq. At the time of his seizure by the United States military acting under orders of Respondents, Petitioner was living in Iraq.

15. No proper or adequate information has been provided by the United States government as to the date or circumstances of Petitioner’s seizure by U.S. forces despite repeated request by Petitioners lawyers and family. Moreover, the Capture Card that was signed by Petitioner shortly after his capture, states that Petitioner was "wounded" although it is not known if he has received medical attention.

16. Petitioner has been held incommunicado, with no access to family or lawyers and without the opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention before a court.


Petitioner’s Detention

17. Since his capture on or around 13 December 2003 Petitioner has been held incommunicado in Respondents' unlawful custody.

18. Petitioner’s exact whereabouts are unknown because the United States government refuses to disclose this information.

19. Petitioner is being held incommunicado and is reportedly being interrogated repeatedly by agents of the United States Departments of Defense and Justice, though they have not been charged with an offense, nor have they been notified of any pending or contemplated charges. Petitioner has made no appearance before either a military or civilian tribunal of any kind, nor has he been provided counsel or the means to contact counsel. Petitioner is not known to have been informed of his rights under the United States Constitution, the regulations of the United States Military, the Third Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. Indeed, the Respondents have taken the position that the Petitioner should not be told of these rights. As a result, the detained Petitioner is completely unable either to protect, or to vindicate his rights under domestic and international law.

20. Petitioner has been allowed to write two or three very brief communications to his wife, one of which was dated 21 January 2004 and delivered by the International Committee of the Red Cross to Petitioners family on or around 21 February 2004. This communications had nine out of fourteen lines censored out it, making it hardly understandable.

21. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was detained as a consequence of the illegal acts of aggression by the United States that were authorized and overseen by the Respondents.

22. The Respondents have also admitted that the Petitioner is a legitimate Prisoner of War to whom the provisions of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War apply fully.

23. Respondents have also threatened to turn over Petitioner to the Iraqi Interim Government on or about 30 June 2004.

24. At the same time Respondents have also threatened to turn Petitioner over to the Iraqi Interim Government despite the fact that this entity has indicated that it will not provide the minimum standards of due process that are guaranteed to Petitioner under United States and international law.

25. The detained Petitioner is not lawfully detained because his detention is in violation of international and United States law.


REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

26. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

27. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution establish the most basic rights pf individuals in the custody of the United States. These rights included, inter alia, the right to challenge one’s detention and to be free of arbitrary detention, the right to legal counsel of one’s choosing, and the right to know charges against oneself.

28. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate the right of the detained Petitioner to be free from arbitrary, prolonged, and indefinite detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

29. Petitioner was captured by the United States on or around 13 December 2003. Since this date he has been held incommunicado and has not been allowed access to counsel or family except for the transmission of one Red Cross message which was heavily edited by his captors.

30. Although Petitioner was apprehended after Respondent George W. Bush announced the end of major hostilities on 1 May 2003, and therefore no longer constituted a threat to American security in Iraq, Petitioner has been and continues to be denied his basic Constitutional right to due process of law.

31. The detention of Petitioner violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.


THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

32. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

33. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate Articles 9 (3) and (4), 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the ICCPR, and Customary International Law as reflected in Articles X, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the ADRDM.

34. Respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the prolonged, indefinite, and arbitrary detention of Petitioner, without legal process, in violation of obligations that are legally binding on the United States under International Law. Respondents Rumsfeld and Bremer are likewise acting in violation of International Law, since they acts at the President's direction.

35. The human rights protecting Petitioner include the right to challenge one’s arrest before the courts (ICCPR, Art. 9(3) and (4) and ADRDM, Art. XXV); the right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal (ICCPR, Art. 14(1) and ADRDM, Art. XVIII); the right to be informed of charges (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(a)); the right to adequate facilities and time to prepare defense (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(b)); the right to lawyer (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(d)); the right not to be punished for an act that was not crime at time of its commission (ICCPR, Art. 15 and ADRDM, Art. XXVI); the right to only be punished once for a crime (ICCPR, Art. 14(7)); the right to public trial and judgment (ICCPR, Art. 14 and ADRDM, Art. XXVI); the right to a trial before a tribunal established in accordance with law (ICCPR, Art. 14(1) and ADRDM, Art. XXVI); the right to a presumption of innocence (ICCPR, Art. 14(2) and ADRDM, Art. XXVI); the right to trial without delay (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(c)); the right to examine witnesses and to call witnesses under same conditions as prosecution (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(e)); the right to a free interpreter (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(f)); the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or confess guilty (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(g)); the right to communicate with lawyer of own choosing (ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(b)); and the right to transmit correspondence (ICCPR, Art. 17 and 19 and ADRDM, Art. X).

36. The widespread acceptance of the basic constituents of the right to fair trial by more than 150 states who have ratified the abovementioned treaties containing these rights indicates that these rights have developed into Customary International Law.

37. All of these rights are violated by the regime under which Petitioner is being held and by the consistency and procedures of the court before which Petitioner is threatened with trial.

38. Petitioner’s incommunicado detention denies him the right to challenge his arrest before any court.

39. The court before which Petitioner will allegedly be tried if turned over to the Iraqi Interim Governing Authority is not independent or impartial court.

40. Its independence is impugned by the fact that its president, Mr. Salem Chalabi, is the nephew of a member of the current Iraqi Governing Authority, Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, and has close connections both to the United States, the de facto and de jure occupying power, and the executive branch of the Iraqi Interim Governing Authority. Except for its president, the identity of other member of the court remains a secret. Such faceless courts have been viewed as prima facie violation of the right to fair trial. See e.g. Ricardo Ernesto Gómez Casafranca v. Peru, Comm. No. 981/2001, UN Doc. No. CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001 (19 September 2003) at para. 7.3.

41. The court’s impartiality is impugned by the fact that its only known member, its president Mr. Salem Chalabi, has been one of the main opponents of the Petitioner and openly sought Petitioner’s his removal by force as Head of State of Iraq for more than a decade as a member of the Iraqi National Congress in violations of Iraqi law and International Law.

42. The right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal; the right to a public trial; and the right to a trial before a properly constituted tribunal are also violated by facts stated in paragraphs ‎40 and ‎41.

43. Despite being held incommunicado for more than six months Petitioner has not been informed of any charges against him.

44. Petitioner has also been denied the right to adequate facilities and time to prepare defense, including his right to consult a lawyer if his own choosing by his incommunicado detention.

45. Petitioner’s right to a presumption of innocence has been violated by statements made by Respondent George W. Bush indicating that Petitioner is a very "bad person" who deserves to be executed.

46. The lengthy delays in charging Petitioner as well as the failure to allow him facilities to prepare his defense including access to lawyers violate his right to a trial without undue delay.

47. The fact that the prosecution is preparing a case against Petitioner, including questioning witnesses, while petitioner lacks the basic necessities for preparing his defense also violates Petitioner’s right to examine witnesses and to call witnesses under same conditions as prosecution.

48. The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or confess guilty is violated by the continued questioning to which Petitioner is being subjected on information and belief.

49. And the limitations on Petitioner's right to communicate with his family and legal counsel violate his right to transmit correspondence.

50. The detention of Petitioner violates International Human Rights Law.

51. Although the constituent rights of trial appear to be potentially derogable, the basic aspects of the right to fair trial may not be suspended even during a situation of national emergency. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29, "States of Emergency", (Article 4 of the ICCPR), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (31 August 2001).

52. In any event, the United States has not invoked its right to attempt to derogate from the rights of fair trial and thereby recognizes its application to the Petitioner.


THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER UNITED STATES’ MILITARY LAW, IRAQI LAW, AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

53. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

54. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate the rights accorded to persons seized by the United States Military in times of armed conflict, as established by, inter alia, Section 3-8 of the Army Regulation 190–8, Articles 15 (D) and (E) of the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Interim Period of Iraq of 8 March 2004, and Articles 84, 99, 100, and 105 of the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Customary International Law.

55. United State Military Law, specifically Army Regulation 190–8 (Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees), OPNAVINST 3461.6, AFJI 31-304, MCO 3461.1 (1 October 1997) at Section 3-8, pp. 10 and 11, requires that captured enemy combatants be accorded the right to a fair trial, including being promptly charged and being given adequate facilities including counsel of his own choosing. [1]

56. Article 15, especially paragraphs C through J, of the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Interim Period of Iraq of 8 March 2004[1] provides for the protection of Petitioner’s right to a fair trial before an impartial and independent court, the right to challenge one’s detention, with a public trial, and the full right of legal counsel of one’s choosing. No court, however, currently exists in Iraq that can ensure these guarantees.

57. Articles 84, 99, 100, and 105 of the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War also require that a Prisoner of War be provided with the basic guarantees of due process including the right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal (Art. 84(2)); the right to adequate facilities and time to prepare defense (Art. 99); the right not to be punished for act that was not crime at time of commission (Art. 99(1)); the right to counsel (Art. 99 and 105); and the right to be informed of criminal charges (Art. 100).

58. The facts stated in paragraphs ‎38 to ‎49 indicated violations of these rights.

59. The detention of Petitioner therefore violates United States Military Law and International Law.


THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO IMPLICITLY SUSPEND THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS VIOLATES ARTICLE 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

60. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

61. To the extent that Respondents’ actions prevent any challenge to the legality of the Petitioners' detention by way of habeas corpus their action constitutes an unlawful suspension of the Writ, in violation of Article I of the United States Constitution.

62. The right to habeas corpus has been described by this Court as the most "precious safeguard of personal liberty" for which "there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired." Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939). It is the most basic, and in this case, the ultimate, protection for the individual against arbitrary action by the government. Suspension of habeas corpus, even in extraordinary circumstances must not take place lightly.

63. Most recently this Court has had held that detainees such as Petitioner have basic due process rights, including habeas corpus. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. __ (2004). Petitioner in this case is in a similar position to the detainees in Guantánamo in that action as he is detain by the United States outside of the territory of the United States but under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States.

64. In this case, Respondents have not suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus by law, but instead are attempting to do so implicitly. Respondents deny Petitioner his right to habeas corpus by holding him incommunicado and refusing him access to his lawyer or the courts. Such an implied suspension of habeas corpus must be rejected, according to the longstanding jurisprudence of the Court. See, e.g., Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 105 (1869) and Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660-62 (1996).

65. Moreover, even those rare precedents were the Court has allowed the suspension of habeas corpus in extraordinary circumstances, are distinguishable from the present case. See, for example, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). In the present case Petitioner does not seek his release from custody or the exercise of any right that would jeopardize the national security of the United States. Instead, Petitioner merely seeks his basic rights of due process with this application for the Great Writ. As long ago as the nineteenth century Chief Justice Taney held that the Great Writ applied even in wartime. Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas.144 (1861). The human right to fair trial under International Law has evolved into a non-derogable human right in the time since both of the decisions just quoted were handed down. In view of this development the right to apply for habeas corpus has gained irrefutable weight to the argument that it is the right of every individual in a civilized country showing even minimal respect for the rule of law to be able to challenge his or her detention.

66. The suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus therefore violates Article I of the United States Constitution.


THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO IMPLICITELY SUSPEND THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

67. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

68. To the extent that Respondents prevent any challenge to the legality of the detention of Petitioner by way of denial of writ habeas corpus, their action constitutes an unlawful Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, in violation of International Human Rights and Customary International Law.

69. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stated that the write of habeas corpus cannot be suspended as it is an essential guarantee of all other rights. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 (6 October 1987), Inter-American Court Human Rights, (Ser. A) No. 9 (1987) and Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 (30 January 1987) Inter-American Court of Human Rights, (Ser. A) No. 8 (1987).

70. The holdings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights represent highly respected and authoritative interpretations of international law in the Americas. They indicate that the prohibition on suspending the habeas corpus has achieved the state of customary international law.

71. The Respondent’s attempted suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus violates International Law.


THE UNITED STATES THREAT TO TURN PETITIONER OVER TO THE IRAQI INTERIM GOVERNMENT VIOLATES PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO BE TREATED HUMANELY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

72. Petitioner incorporates paragraphs ‎6 through ‎25 by reference.

73. To the extent that Respondents threaten to turn Petitioner over to the Iraqi Interim government, an entity that will not secure his rights to due process and fair trial, Petitioner is threatened with cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. This constitutes a violation of Article VIII of the United States Constitution, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, and Customary International Law.

74. Furthermore, the Iraqi Interim Authority is not a party to the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and turning respondent over to this authority violates this Convention.

75. Article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention states that a Prisoner of War, as Petitioner is acknowledged to be by the US government, may only be transferred to a "Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention." The United States has not satisfied these conditions in relation to its proposed transfer of Petitioner to the Iraqi Interim Government and as a consequence this transfer will lead to the violation of his most basic individual rights.

76. Article 46 of the same Third Geneva Convention requires that a transfer be in the interest of the party concerned. In this case, as shown above, proposed transfer of Petitioner to the Iraqi Interim Government will lead to the violation of his most basic rights.

77. The prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment found in Article 7 and 10 of the ICCPR and which is undoubtedly customary international law is also found in art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, U.N.G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), art. XXV of the ADRDM, art. 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, signed 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978, O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.23, doc. 21, rev. 6 (1979), art. 3 of the ECHR, art. 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev.5 and art. 3 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Council of Europe doc. H(95)7 rev (1995). This right has been interpreted to prohibit the transfer of a prisoner to any entity that might seriously violate the prisoner’s human rights. Transfers to states that will carry out the death penalty have been prohibited, Soering v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Ser. A, No. 161 as well as transfers to states that will violate an individual’s right to fair trial, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859.

78. The threat to turn Petitioner over violates to the United States Constitution and International Law.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:

1. Order Respondents not to turn Petitioner over to any entity that will not respect his rights under the United States Constitution and International Law;

2. Order Respondents to allow legal counsel to meet and confer with the detained Petitioner, in private and unmonitored attorney-client conversations;

3. Order Respondents to cease all interrogations of the detained Petitioner, direct or indirect, while this litigation is pending;

4. Order and declare that the detained Petitioner is being held in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

5. Order and declare that the detained Petitioner is being held in violation of Customary International Law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man;

6. Order and declare that the detained Petitioner is being held in violation of the regulations of the United States Military, the Geneva Convention, and International Humanitarian Law;

7. To the extent Respondents contest any material factual allegations in this Petition, schedule an evidentiary hearing, at which Petitioner may adduce proof in support of his allegations;

8. Such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to protect Petitioner's rights under the United States Constitution and International Law.

Submitted Date: 29 JUNE 2004



The names and addresses of those served are as follows:



George W. Bush

c/o The Solicitor General of the United States United States

Room 5614

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington DC 20530-0001



Donald Rumsfeld

c/o The Solicitor General of the United States United States

Room 5614

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington DC 20530-0001



Paul Bremer

c/o The Solicitor General of the United States United States

Room 5614

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington DC 20530-0001








Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler is an international human rights lawyer. His most recent publication is International Human Rights Law: Cases and Materials by CD Publishing (see www.hri.ca or cdpublishing.filetap.com). Dr. Doebbler is also a member of the Legal Team of about two dozen lawyers representing the former President of Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussein. Everything in this report represents the personal views of Dr. Doebbler or publicly available information. The information provided is limited by Dr. Doebbler’s responsibilities of confidentiality to his client.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This law is available at the Website of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority << http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html >>.


Courtesy of Curtis F.J. Doebbler