Enlisting Terrorist Entities and Due Process of Law

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Ghannam Mohamed Ghannam

Abstract

This research addresses one of the most important issues in the modern criminal law. Following September 11, the world was awakened by the size and the danger of Al Qaida as the most destructive terrorist organization in the world. From that time, the UN and many States introduced legislations proscribing the establishment, management, membership, recruitment, and even the promulgation of the ideas of these organizations. These legislations became even more important due to the dangerous role of the Islamic States operating in Syria and Iraq. This research studies the process of enlisting these organizations as terrorist organization in order to understand the mechanism followed to criminalize their activities. This mechanism might be judicial or administrative as perceived appropriate by the national legislator. It is thus significant to study this mechanism in light of the right to due process of law. The consequences of enlisting an organization on the list of terrorist organizations unveils the importance of the subject, most importantly, as far as the right to property is concerned. In this regard, freezing the assets of an association or a corporation is a measure that violates the right to property, especially when it is enforced ipso facto by the decision of enlisting the organization on the above-mentioned list. Accordingly, this research offers a comparative study of the different mechanisms followed by legislators around the world, as well as, the position of the Qatari legislator. Finally, the research concludes by some concluding remarks and recommendations that highlight its practical aspects.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Terrorist entities and organizations
Proscribed organizations
Enlisting proscribed organization
Due process of law
Freezing assets

Section
Articles in Arabic
References
المراجع

المراجع باللغة العربية:
-إبراهيم عيد نايل، السياسة الجنائية في مواجهة الإرهاب في القانون الفرنسي والمصري، دار النهضة العربية، 1995.
-أبو الوفا محمد أبو الوفا، "التأصيل الشرعي والقانوني لمكافحة الجماعات الإرهابية"، المجلة العلمية المحكمة لكلية الشريعة والقانون، العدد 11، طنطا، 2000.
-أحمد فتحي سرور، المواجهة القانونية للإرهاب، الطبعة الأولى، دار النهضة العربية، 2008.
-أحمد فتحي سرور، القانون الجنائي الدستوري، الطبعة الثانية، دار الشروق، 2002.
- أحمد فتحي سرور، الشرعية الدستورية وحقوق الإنسان في الإجراءات الجنائية، دار النهضة العربية، 1995.
-أشرف توفيق شمس الدين، السياسة التشريعية لمكافحة الإرهاب ومدى اتفاقها مع أصول الشريعة الجنائية (دراسة نقدية للقانون المصري)، دار النهضة العربية، 2006.
-أكمل يوسف السعيد يوسف، "قوائم الكيانات الإرهابية والإرهابيين في ضوء الشرعية الدستورية والجنائية"، مجلة القانون والاقتصاد، 2016.
-حسام أفندي، التشكيلات العصابية في التشريع الجنائي المقارن، مؤسسة بداري برنت للطباعة بأسيوط، 2016.
-شيماء عبد الغني عطاالله، "السياسة الجنائية المعاصرة في مواجهة التنظيمات الإرهابية"، مجلة البحوث القانونية والاقتصادية، العدد 59، أبريل 2016.
-فهد نشمي الرشيدي، مفهوم المحاكمة العادلة في قضاء المحكمة الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان والمحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية (رسالة دكتوراه) حقوق المنصورة، 2015.
-محمد سامي الشوا، الجريمة المنظمة، دار النهضة العربية، 1998.
-طارق سرور، الجماعة الإجرامية المنظمة، دار النهضة العربية، 2000.
-وليد الشناوي، "دور مبدأ التناسب في مجال إجراءات مكافحة الإرهاب"، مجلة البحوث القانونية والاقتصادية، العدد 57، كلية الحقوق، جامعة المنصورة، أبريل 2015.
-هدى حامد قشقوش، التشكيلات العصابية في قانون العقوبات في ضوء حكم المحكمة الدستورية العليا، منشأة المعارف، الاسكندرية، 2006.

المراجع باللغة الأجنبية:

-Bruce Zagaris, The Merging Of the Anti-Money Laundering And Counter-Terrorism Financial Enforcement Regimes After September 11, 2001.
-Chantal Cutajar, Le gel des avoirs terroristes en application du règlement UE n°2580/2001, AJ Pénal 2013, p. 455.
-Elspeth Guild, The Uses and Abuses of Counter-Terrorism Policies in Europe: The Case of the ‘Terrorist Lists’, JCMS 2008, Volume 46, Number 1, pp. 173–19.3
-H. Labayle et R. Mehdi, Le contrôle juridictionnel de la lutte contre le terrorisme Les blacks lists de l’'Union dans le prétoire de la Cour de justice, RTD eur. 2009. 231.
-Joo-Cheong Tham, Possible Constitutional Objections to the Powers to Ban 'Terrorist' Organisations, 27 U.N.S.W.L.J. (UNSW Law Journal) 482 2004: http://heinonline.org
-Julie Alix, Fallait-il étendre la compétence des juridictions pénales en matière terroriste ?, Recueil Dalloz, 2013.
-Justin S. Daniel, Blacklisting Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Classified Information, National Security, and Due Process, University of Pennsylvania Law Review [Vol. 166: 213].
-L. Idot, Droit de la Communauté et de l’Union européennes - Jurisprudence de la CJCE et du TPICE. Procédures communautaires quasi-répressives, RSC 2009. 197.
-Marieke de Goede, Blacklisting and the ban: Contesting targeted sanctions in Europe, Security Dialogue. 42(6):499-515, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011.
-Miriam Gani and Gregor Urbas, Alert or Alarmed? Recent Legislative Reforms directed at Terrorist OrganisationsOrganizations and Persons Supporting or Assisting Terrorist Acts, 8 Newcastle L. Rev. 23 2004-200.
-Nicola MCgarrity , The criminalisation Criminalisation of Terrorist Ffinancing in Australia, 38 Monash U. L. Rev. 55 2012.
-Ronny Abraham, La participation passée d'une personne à un groupe d'action terroriste, la rend indigne d'acquérir la nationalité française, AJDA 1994, p. 140.
-U. Candas et A. Miron, Assonances et dissonances dans la mise en oeuvreœuvre des sanctions ciblées onusiennes par l’'Union européenne et les ordres juridiques nationaux, JDI n° 3, juillet. 2011, chron. 8 et plus globalement J.-Cl. Libertés, v° Libertés et terrorisme, fasc. 660, pts 40 s., par J.-C. Martin).

أحكام المحاكم الأجنبية:

-De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 106, 23 February 2017 and the cases cited therein; Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 68, 27 June 2017; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, ECHR 2017.
-Al- Aqeel v. Paulson, 568 F. Supp. 2d 64, 66 (D.D.C. 2008).
-Arrêt rendu par Conseil d'Etat, 09-11-2005, n° 254882, Un dirigeant terroriste ne peut pas bénéficier de la convention de Genève, AJDA 2006 p. 269.
-Arrêt rendu par Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, 17-3- 2017, Organisation terroriste (Tigres tamouls) : précisions par la CJUE et mesures de prévention, Recueil Dalloz, p.1514, n° C-158/14.
-Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001‑VIII; Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012; and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
-Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Communist_Party_v_Commonwealth.
-BGH, 5th Criminal Senate, Decision of 28 October 2004, Case No. StB 5/04, NStZ-RR 2005, 73).
-Bundesgerichtshof, 3rd Criminal Senate, Decision of 1 March 2007,Case No. AK 1/07.
-C. Demunck, CJUE, gde ch., 21 déc. 2011, France c. People’'s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, aff. C-27/09, Rejet du pourvoi de la France contre la radiation de la People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran de la liste des organisations terrorists, Dalloz actualité, 08 février 2012.
-CEDH 15 janv. 2013, Eusko Abertzale Ekintza – Acción Nacionalista Vasca [EAE-ANV] c/Espagne, req. no 40959/09, § 79 s.
-CEDH 20 oct. 2005, Organisation macédonienne unie Iliden et autres c/Bulgarie, req. no 44079/98.
-CEDH 30 juin 2009, Herri Batasuna et Batasuna c/Espagne, req. no 25803/04 et 25817/04.
-CEDH 31 juill. 2001, Refah Partisi et autres c/Turquie, req. no 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98. – CEDH, gr. ch., 3 févr. 2003, Refah Partisi et autres c/Turquie, req. no 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, § 86-89, préc. – V. sur cet arrêt KITSOU-MILONAS, Europe 2001, no 344. – SUDRE, JCP 2002. I. 105, no 16.
-CEDH 7 déc. 2006, Artyomov c/Russie, req. no 17582/05 , AJDA 2007. 902, note Flauss.
-CEDH 7 déc. 2006, Linkov c/République tchèque, req. no 10504/03.
-CEDH, 28 févr. 2008, Saadi c/Italie, req. n° 37201/06: AJDA 2008. 978, chron. J.-F. Flauss ; ibid. 1929, chron. J.-F. Flauss ; RSC 2008. 692, chron. J.-P.
-CEDH, 30 mai 2013, Rafaa c. France, req. n° 25393/10, Dalloz actualité 13 juin 2013, Expulsion d'un étranger lié à des organisations terrorists et risque de torture.
-CEDH, gr. ch., 3 févr. 2003, Refah Partisi c/Turquie, req. no 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98.
-CEDH, gr. ch., 30 janv. 1998, Parti communiste c/Turquie. – CEDH, gr. ch., 25 mai 1998, Parti socialiste c/Turquie. – CEDH, gr. ch., 8 déc. 1999, Parti de la liberté et de la démocratie [Özdep] c/Turquie.
-Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012; Mesut Yurtsever and Others v. Turkey, no. 14946/08 and 11 others, § 103, 20 January 2015; Işıkırık v. Turkey (no. 41226/09, § 58, 14 November 2017) and also, mutatis mutandis, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000‑XI; and De Tommaso, cited above, § 109.
-CJCE, arrêt du 3 septembre 2008, Yassin Abdullah Kadi et Al Barakaat International Foundation c/Conseil de l'Union européenne et Commission des Communautés européennes.
-Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Case of Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat v. TURKEY 6 septembre 2005, n° 35363/02; Özel, cited above, §§ 33-34, and Özdemir v. Turkey, no. 59659/00, §§ 35-36, 6 February 2003.
-Cour européenne des droits de l’'homme, Case of Bakir and Others v. Turkey, 10 juillet 2018 , n° 46713/10
-Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, 2e section, Case of İmret v. Turkey (No. 2), 10 juillet 2018, n° 57316/10.
-Cour Européenne des droits de l'homme, Case of GÜLCÜ v. Turkey , 19 janvier 2016, n° 17526/10.
-Crim. 10 janv. 2017, no 16-84.596 , Dalloz actualité, 2 févr. 2017, obs. A. André ; AJ pénal 2017. 79, obs. Alix ; Dr. pénal 2017, no 35, obs. Conte ; V. égal. supra, no 28.
-Crim. 21 mai 2014 n° 13-83.758: Pierre de Combles de Nayves, Saufenmatière, AJ Pénal 2014 p. 528.
-Crim. 21 mai 2014, n° 13-83.758: Mélanie Bombled, Terrorisme par association de malfaiteurs en cas de soutien à une organisation terroriste , Dalloz actualité 03 juin 2014.
-Crim. 21 mai 2014, no 13.83.758, Bull. crim. no 136.
-Crim. 30 avr. 1996, Bull. Crim. n° 176 ; Crim. 3 juin 2004, n° 03-83.334.
-Decision 26 Juin 2006: 71 J. Crim. L. 147 2006-2007: http://heinonleine.org.
-Eckes, Christina, Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran v. Council and UK (OMPI), Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2006 [case] , Common Market Law Review , Vol. 44, Issue 4 (August 2007), pp. 1117-1130.
-European Court of Justice, (2008) C-402/05 and 415/05 (2008) ECR I-6351.
-Faraj Hassan v. Council of the European Union and European Commission (C-399/06 P) and Chafiq Ayadi v. Council of the European Union (C-403/06 P).
-Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339.
-German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof-BGH), 3rd Criminal Senate, Promoting a Terrorist Organisation: Support versus Recruitment of Members or Supporters Decision of 16 May 2007, Case No. AK 6/07 and StB 3/07.
-Girard v. Klopfenstein, 930 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1991); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975).
-Holy Land Found for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165-66 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
-Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976).
-Mélanie Bombled, Terrorisme par association de malfaiteurs en cas de soutien à une organisation terroriste, Crim. 21 mai 2014, F-P+B+I, n° 13-83.758, Dalloz actualité 03 juin 2014.
-National Council 251 F.3d 192, 205-07 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
-Paris, 10e Ch., section B, 25 avr. 1997, n° 96/07152; Paris, 10e Ch. Section A, 26 janv. 1999, 98/01582 ; Paris, 10e Ch., section A, 26 juin 2000, 00/00190 ; Paris, 10e Ch. Section A, 19 nov. 2007, 07/01558.
-People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S; Nat’l Council II, 373 F.3d 152, 158 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
-People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep’t of State (People’s Mojahedin III), 613.
-Protopapa v. Turkey 24 February 2009 (no. 16084/90, (§§ 104-112).
-Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011.
-Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961).
-Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203.
-T-306/01 Yusuf [2005] ECR II-3533; T-315/01 Kadi [2005] ECR II-3649 and T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedine du people d’Iran 12 December 2006, T-47/03 Sisson 11 July 2007.
-Taranenko v. Russia (no. 19554/05, §§ 70-71 and §§ 90-97, 15 May 2014.
-The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others, cited above, § 70; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, cited above, § 143).
-U.S. Supreme Court, Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961).
-U.S. Supreme Court, Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961).
-United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, NAtional National Council of Resistance of Iran, Petitioner, v. Department of State and Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, Respondents (2004), F373 F.3d 152: http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/182F3d17.html.
-United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Petitioner, v. Department of State and Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, Respondents, 2004, F373 F.3d 152:http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/F3/373/373.F3d.152.htmNo. 01-1480.
-United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990).
-Vrahimi v. Turkey, no. 16078/90, §§ 111-122, 22 September 2009; Andreou Papi v. Turkey, 22 September 2009, no 16094/90, §§ 105-116); and Asproftas v. Turkey, 27 May 2010, no. 16079/90, §§ 103-114).
-Walker v. City of Berkeley, 951 F.2d 182, 184 (9th Cir. 1991); Brown v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, No. 93A-1-017, 1994 WL 315304.