Source: http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/886/Al-Zahrani-and-Al-Salami-v-Rodriguez-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:41:51+00:00

Document:
Home > Cases > Al-Zahrani & Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.
Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.
Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.
In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case.
In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling.
On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.
In 2006, Yasser Al-Zahrani and Salah Al-Salami committed suicide in their cells. In January 2009, a civil claim was brought by their families under the Alien Tort Claims Act for damages for arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture. See Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Complaint, 7 January 2009.
On 26 June 2009, the United States government moved to dismiss both the claims brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act as well as the Constitutional claims.
On 16 February 2010, the District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the adduced claims.
On 16 March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence (see Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., Case No. 09-cv-00028, Motion for Reconsideration in Light of Newly-Discovered Evidence, 16 March 2010). On 15 April 2010, the Government of the United States filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs filed their reply on 3 May 2010.
On 29 September 2010, the District Court denied the motion to reconsider, finding no evidence to contradict the previous reasoning.
Did the District Court err in its dismissal of the action brought by Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami?
Para. 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act 2009.
Para. 2241(e) of the US Code.
“The Court of Appeals affirm the judgment of dismissal rendered by the District Court since “28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) deprives this court of jurisdiction over appellants’ claims. We further hold that the Supreme Court did not declare § 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional in Boumediene and the provision retains vitality to bar those claims. We therefore conclude that the decision of the District Court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for a lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule12(b)(6)” (p. 8).
US Military Commissions Act 2009.
Code of Laws of the United States of America (United States Code).
US District Court for the District of Columbia,Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., Civil Action No. 09-0028 (ESH), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 September 2010.
S. Vladeck, 'The Subtle New (Constitutional) Holding in Al-Zahrani', Lawfare, 21 February 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2241
 v.