Yemen war: Is UK responsible for this deathly war ?
Money can buy everything, it can buy drops of blood of children, women, innocent civil lives who do not have any interest in war whatsoever, but all it takes a bullet to snatch away a 7 years old life. But who cares as long as it brings money on the economic table?
“I felt pain – pain, pain, indescribable pain’’ said bya father who had lost his little sonsby Saudi led coalition airstrike on a school bus filled with childrenkillingat least 30 of them
But does anyone care? Does it even matter?
Saudi led coalition invaded Yemen in 2015 in support of the pro-Saudi president of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi who was ousted by the Houthi movement. In this war, 12907 Yemeni civilians killed (1980 women and 2768 children and overall 91600 killed). However actual casualties are much higher, and thousands have been displaced by the war and millions suffer health degrade, shortage of food, water and thereby posing a great risk to human health by exposing them to cholera epidemic while millions are starving. Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain all these countries are taking part in this catastrophic war including the United States and the UK providing military intelligence, logistical support, selling weapons, bombs also giving military support for Saudi air led strikes.
Since 2015, there are hundreds of unlawful drone strikes which have hit homes, markets, hospitals, mosque, schools. Some of these attacks may amount to war crimes. Recently, the coalition bombed a wedding killing 22 people, including 8 children, in another attack, bombed a bus filled with children killing 26.
This war has been condemned by the United Nations, UNESCO, Human Rights Watch, AmnestyInternational,anInternationalCommittee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and another humanitarian organization as well.
In March 2016 UN High Commission for Human Rights,ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein commented that,
“The [Saudi-led] coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as all forces put together, virtually all as a result of airstrikes
UK an accomplice?
UK is the second-largest arms seller to Saudi Arabia (KSA) alongside with USA, Italy, and France and many other countries. Britain licensed more than 4.7 billion pounds of arms to the Saudis since 2015; this includes typhoon, tornado fighter jets, and precision-guided bombs.These contributed billions of pounds of revenue to the UK arms trade.
Allegedly, UK is a partner in crime with Saudis over war crimes, breaking UN regulations, Geneva conventions, International humanitarian law (IHL), the arms trade treaty (ATT) and laws of armed conflict (LOAC).UN security repeatedly made its concern to the impediment of delivery of humanitarian relief to the Yemeni civilian population.
Despite all the fulmination from the public, media, criticism by academics and jurists, the UK is relentlessly selling arms to Saudi Arabia which implicates the UK on war crimes.
In 2016, A Saudi Arabian led coalition had confessed that it bombed a funeral in Yemen killing 140 people and wounding 600 based on wrong intelligence.
One of the victims’family members, Muhammad Ali al Rowaishan had submitted complaints to the UK Metropolitan police counterterrorism (so15) the (met) and the US department of justice. Rodney Dixon QC counsel for the family said:
‘The law allows for certain serious international crimes to be prosecuted irrespective of where they took place, who the perpetrator is and what their nationality is ‘
If the American and British authorities accept the need for an investigation, many senior Saudi officials could be at risk of arrest and questioning. The most high-profile case in the UK to date involved Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested in London on October 1998 for human rights violations, following a request from a Spanish magistrate.So it is very much likely that Saudi officials would be brought into justice for their atrocities in Yemen just like Pinochet. As we all love to see history repeat itself.
R (on the application of Campaign AgainstArms Trade) v Secretary of state for international trade  EWCA Civ1020
This appeal is concerned aboutthe lawfulness of the UK government of selling arms mainly export license of sales and transfers of military equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Yemen conflict.
The court of appeal summarised the judgment of divisional court Burnett LJ and Haddon-Cave J in paragraph 34 -48. In paragraph 34, 35 CA cited relevant case laws and principles used by the divisional court.
In paragraph 52, the court affirmed that in July 2018 Irwin LJ gave Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Rights Watch UK, permission to intervene only by written submission. Then from Para53 , the court issued the correct approach of this case indicating the case of R (Hoareau and Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs  , stating lord Bingham’s statement in the case of A v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKHL, where Lord Bingham focused on rule of law above all and gave immense importance of judges interpretation of law. 
In breaking down the parts of ground 1, the court identified the case names emphasized by the interveners which have long-established the graveness of evidence received from human rights organizations( Para 87)andthe Supreme court also recognized the authority of UNCHR, Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch.So, it is evident that the UK government cannot just simply resent the documents recorded by human rights organizations and NGOs that Saudi has breached IHL groundbreaking rules catastrophically killing civilians. Similarly, the UN panel also had agreed with the expert corroboration provided by the HRW and amnesty international.
On the incident of attacking abs hospital on Hajjah, killed many civilians and detonations of 87 kg high explosives remained proved (GBU-12 PAVEWAY II guided bomb) supplied by the UK.
Based on all the reasons above, The Court of Appeal concluded that it was ‘irrational and therefore unlawful’ for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have granted licenses without making any assessment as to whether violations of international humanitarian law had taken place.
This is a landmark ruling that appears to rebuke four years of UK policy regarding arms sales in the Yemen conflict. The judgment has been appreciated by CAAT, as well as the intervening human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However, the Government has sought permission to appeal, and if this is granted, the next court decision may well turn out in their(government) favour.The government must reconsider its decision to continue to export arms to KSA.As a result, Liam fox, suspended further arms sales to Saudi while government appealing against its verdict. Labor party called for a full inquiry. The party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said:
“UK advice, assistance, and arms supply to Saudi’s war in Yemen is a moral stain on our country. Arms sales to Saudi must stop now.”
Dr. Anna Stavrianakis, a senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Sussex, said the verdict demonstrated that ministers had “turned a blind eye” to events in Yemen. “This finally brings some accountability to the UK’s role in the war,” she added.
However, despite this government has licensed £435,000 of radio spares and a £200 air cooler to the Royal Saudi air forces and for that international trade secretary, Liz truss recently on 16 September 2019, apologized to the court for the error in granting these two-license saying it was inadvertent. She said the internal investigation had been launched to establish whether other licenses had been issued against the assurances to the court of Parliament, and to ensure there could be no further breaches. Responding to the government’s apology, the campaign’s Andrew Smith said:
“We are always being told how rigorous and robust UK arms export controls supposedly are, but this shows that nothing could be further from the truth.”
After this incident, the shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said: “Liz Truss must provide a full account of why her department failed so miserably. If she cannot control her department, obey the law and do what is morally right, she should resign.’’
Alongside the UK, USA, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Denmark, UAE, a lot of countries are selling arms to Saudi Arabia which are being used in Yemen war.
However recently, the senate and the house of representatives of (USA)have both supported a bipartisan motion calling for an end to their support to Saudi by banning 8 billion worth of arms selling to Saudi which will be most likely vetoed by president trump. In an article by William Roberts (Al Jazeera), pointed out that, democrats accuse trump by creating phony emergency to bypass congress which was relied upon US arms export control act 1976 which has been criticized by democrats Ilhan Omar, RepresentativeAndy Levin, CNN, andother major news media outlets and newspapers.
In Belgium, the WallonaisConseild’État (a top court)annulled 5 export licenses to Saudi and ministers said they would be more likely to refuse other licenses if they were of any use in Yemen war.
The Danish government also suspended arms to Saudi and so did Germany followedby the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
In June 2019 Italy halted the transfer of bombs a missile to Saudi which would be politically binding. (Andrew smith editor, john Moseley proofreader )
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) military has announced a “strategic redeployment” from the port city of Hodeidah in Yemen. They are also trying to lessen their involvement in the Yemen war  .
It is reasonable to expect that, eventually all countries will stop arming Saudi Arabia.
In the meanwhile, it seems Saudi Arabia won’t get away easily by bombing Yemen. Recent oil attacks on SaudiAramcotwo sites the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities — which took out 5.7 million barrels per day of crude exhibits they are in acute peril. Even though Yemeni Houthi rebels profess culpability and said that it will stop ambushing Saudi if KSA stops attacking them, Saudi and USA blame Iran nonetheless without any intransigent confirmation
Proposed law reform and recommendations
To immobilise the UK from vending arms furthermore to Saudi Arabia- needs more than just a Court ruling on judicial reviews as it does not review the merits of the decision of the government as long as it(gov) reconsider with a meticulous approach. Here, government lawyers can come up with loads of scams to dolt public, campaigners, and court just to override and justify their action as they have tons of funds, right equipage, and resources as did the President trump to bypass congress.
So, what can we do?
Considering the emergence of the current situation, and the government’s policy to grant a license despite the fact that it has been documented by the Saudi breach of IHL, which incriminates the United Kingdom, calls for an imminent amendment of the current law on arms exports.
Amend Export control act 2002:
- Sec 5 (2), as amended as provides that controls may be imposed to give effect to any EU provision or other international obligation of the UK.
- Section 9(2) provides that the Secretary of State may give guidance about any matter relating to the exercise of any licensing power or other functions conferred by a control order.
Here, we need to change the wording from “may” to “must” in sec 5(2) and 9 (2). Secretary of state must acknowledge the EU provision and international treaties and obligations (such as ATT, Geneva Convention). Besides, there must be a compelling provisionenacted called as a formal inquiry provision for not following the former. Also, they must envisage war crimes that are being committed by usingtheir arms.
Follow EU common position strictly:
Article 2.2 (criterion 2) must be given effect including(c) and Article 10, article 13 by all legislatures currently granting the license to any country who tends to commit war crimes or to break IHL.
However, the Brexit is due on 31st October but UK got no deal yet besides UKSC ruled against PM (BorisJohnson) regarding the suspension of parliament.After Brexit, the crucial question remains what would happen to (EU common law position)? Then we can converge our attention on other treaties and regulations, makeUK Acts compatible with IHL. Moreover, there must be strict accountability for any civil servants who break the law, even at the international level.Not to mention we have to make our judiciary more independent like the USA judiciary.
Dr. Simone Wisotzk, expressed about the significance of Article 6(3) of ATTand Article 13 of the additional protocol II of Geneva Convention and mentioned that a European moratorium on arms exports to Saudi Arabia might make all the difference.
On an ending note: even though the war is taking place everywhere and we have an imminent threat of WW3.Notwithstanding, we have to learn from our historyand not give any opportunity to anyone who is taking advantage of the arms trade to kill civilians and change our policy on exporting armsimmediately so Britain can no longer be prey to modern-day Neville Chamberlain.
“I Know, Right” (IKR) is an initiative by London College of Legal Studies(South) and Female Empowerment Movement that raises awareness to legally empower the People of Bangladesh. I Know, Right” consists of a team of three lawyers and one social entrepreneur: Faran Md. Araf, Lecturer at LCLS (South) and a Barrister at Law (Lincoln’s Inn), Mariha Zaman Khan, Lecturer at LCLS (South), Advocate, Dhaka District Court, and a Barrister at Law (Lincoln’s Inn), Zaiba Tahyya, Founder and CEO at FEM – Female Empowerment Movement, and Tahsin Noor Salim, Lecturer at LCLS (South) Advocate, Dhaka District Court, and a Barrister at Law (Lincoln’s Inn).
VICTIM OF EXPIRED GOODS?
Mina, a mother of two, just like every other mother, wants to provide the best of everything to her children – her world. Mina’s son is 5 years old and her daughter is a beautiful baby of 6 months.
One dreadful evening Mina finds out that both her children have fallen ill. Both are suffering from food poisoning. The last thing she could remember was, her son was having Star Chips while her daughter was fed with baby food formula. Mina being extremely hygienic always ensures that her children consume food in a clean environment. She was wondering where things went wrong.
She discovers that the chips she had bought was recently banned by the High Court, but still the supershop sold it to her regardless. Secondly, the expiry date on the food formula was missing from the packaging and there was no seal of the importer. Trodden with guilt, Mina wants to know what can she do to prevent other mothers from suffering the same fate.
Have we all not faced such a similar problem? This is what we can do by virtue of the rights guaranteed under Consumer’s Right Protection Act 2009
What Rights do consumer have ?
According to the UN
- Right to Basic Needs
- Right to Safety
- Right of Information
- Right to Choose
- Right to Representation
- Right to Redress
- Right to Consumer Education
- Right to Healthy Environment
Who can be a Complainant?
According to Section 2(3) of the Consumers’ Right Protection Act 2009, the following persons can file a complaint to the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection:
(a) any consumer;
(b) one or more consumers having same interest;
(c) any consumer association registered under any Act;
(d) the National Consumers’ Right Protection Council or any officer authorised to file any complaint on its behalf;
(e) the Government, or any Government officer authorised by the Government in this behalf; or (f) the concerned wholesaler and retailer.
Procedure to lodge a complaint:
- Must be in a written form along with personal details;
- Through fax or e-mails or any other electronic media;
- Must provide the receipt of the product;
Where to complain?
Dhaka: Director General, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, 1 Karwan Bazar (TCB Bhaban-8th Floor), Dhaka.
National Consumer Complaint Center, 1 Karwan Bazar (TCB Bhaban-9th Floor), Phone: 01777753668, Email: email@example.com.
Chittagong: Deputy Director, Chittagong Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, TCB Bhaban, Bandartila, Chittagong.
Barishal: Deputy Director, Khulna Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, Mohila Club Bhaban, Barishal.
Rajshahi: Deputy Director, Rajshahi Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, Srirampur, Rajshahi.
Sylhet: Deputy Director, Sylhet Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, Divisional Commissioner’s Office, Sylhet.
Khulna: Deputy Director, Khulna Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, TCB Bhaban, Shivbari More, Khulna.
Rangpur: Deputy Director, Rangpur Divisional Office, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection, New Engineer Para, Rangpur.
Section 23. Power of investigation of the Director General or any other officer.
(1) The Director General shall have the same power for the investigation of an offence under this Act as an officer-in-charge of a police station.
Section 28. DG has power to ask for lawful assistance from any law enforcement agency like Police,RAB etc.
In the event where the packaging does not include the pricing or expiry date of the product, the alleged can be fined up to TK 50000 and/or be imprisoned up to one year.
Where one knowingly sells or attempts to sell adulterated products, he/she can face up to three years of imprisonment or be fined up to 2 lacs or both.
Consumers also have their rights protected under Pure Food Ordinance 1959, The Essential Commodity Act 1956 and the Penal Code 1860.
Subscribed to a Scam Meal Plan? Know Your Legal Rights
As wedding season arrives, Molly is determined to lose weight to fit into her fancy clothing. She went through her social media page and found a page that promised her she would lose around 4 kgs in two weeks. She immediately signed up to the meal plan that would deliver her food everyday for two weeks. While signing up for the meal plan, she was not provided with a certified nutritionist.
Molly thoroughly followed the plan without cheating on her meals. It was also affecting her daily routine, as she was always tired due to lack of nutrients. After two weeks, Molly did not find any changes in her weighing machine. She was the same except she felt weak, tired and demotivated.
What are Molly’s rights as a consumer of the “healthy” meal plan?
Under Section 60 of the Consumers Right Protection Act 2009, within 30 days of the cause of action arising, the complaint needs to be made to the Director General (DG) of The Directorate of National Consumers’ Right Protection (DNCRP).
Once the complaint has been lodged, the following three actions can be taken:
- Relying on the DG. If the DG’s investigation finds the party guilty, then the DG can prosecute and fine up to a certain amount of which 25% will given to the complainant (section 76 of Consumers Right Protection Act 2009).
- Criminal case. A criminal case can be pursued in front of a first class or metropolitan magistrate only after the complain has been referred to the DG (Section 57 and 60 of Consumers Right Protection Act 2009). It is going to be a summary trial thus ensuring swift disposal of the case. For false advertisement, punishment will be up to 1 year imprisonment or up to BDT 2 lacs fine or both (Section 44 Consumers Right Protection Act, 2009).
- Molly can also go for a civil remedy based on the contract and can follow it up at the civil court under The Contracts’ Act ,1872 and CPC procedures. For this, a practicing lawyer’s advice need to be sought. If she goes ahead with the civil suit, the Consumer Rights Protection Act empowers the civil courts to give upto five times the assessed damages she has suffered from the contract and also the costs of the suit and she will get the benefit financially ( Section 67 Consumers Right Protection Act,2009).Drawbacks in this route includes length of time it needs to dispose of the suit.
The market for meal delivery services was valued at 210 billion USD according to Morgan Stanley research in 2016. In Bangladesh, the meal plan service is gaining popularity amongst the health conscious population. Hence know your rights if you are one of them.
Legally Ending Animal Cruelty
Roxana was hanging out with her friends in a park near her house. Suddenly, a street dog came in their way and her friend Cynthia got scared. She started screaming seeing the dog and attracted a big crowd. Before Roxana could calm the situation down, Cynthia’s boyfriend started to kick the dog repeatedly. Consequently, the dog stopped responding. No one bothered except Roxana who was distressed and wanted to take further steps.
In the past, Roxana also witnessed vendors trying to sell parrots that were tightly tied upside down in a cage, with their legs clearly displaying signs of injury. This left Roxana traumatized for a while.
What would you do if you were Roxana? Good news is that there are new laws in Bangladesh that deal with such cruelty against animals.
- Gather evidence. If you witness either of the scenes then call 999 immediately.
- You may go to your nearest police station and report with sufficient evidence.
- If the animal is alive, you can also seek help from the nearest fire service and local government officials who are under a duty to help you (Section 14, Animal Welfare Act 2019).
But can the acts be classified as cruelty against animals?
According to Section 6(d) of Animal Welfare Act 2019, cruelty amounts to restricting the animal to such an extent and in such a manner that it fails to stand, sit or function in its natural ways. Section 6(e) also highlights cruelty to include unnecessary hurting of the animal using sharp instruments, while Section 6(h) includes annoying the animal to be deemed as cruelty. Furthermore, Section 10 of the same Act focuses on punishment for damaging or removing organs of animals.
Know your right. The archaic law of Animal Cruelty Act 1920 has been replaced by Animal Welfare Act 2019 which takes punitive measures against perpetrators such as:
- For restricting movement of animals, punishment can go up to 6 months imprisonment or 10,000 BDT fine or both (Section 16(a) Animal Welfare Act 2019)
- If the animal is found to have suffered from a damage or removal of an organ then the assailant will face imprisonment for up to two years or fine of 50,000 BDT or both (Section 16(b) Animal Welfare Act 2019)
Laws against Mental Abuse in Bangladesh
Nahar and Alif have been married for five years. Two years into the marriage, Nahar started to feel depressed. Alif constantly criticized everything from the way she looked and her inability to cook and clean. He made her quit her job by continuous character assassination.
Nahar started to question her abilities and went into isolation from her disturbed mental state. He never raised his hands on her so she failed to understand the magnitude of the wrong that was being done to her. There were no physical scars that were emblematic to the abuse that she was undergoing but what about the emotional scars that plunged her into the depth of darkness?
If you were Nahar, what would you do?
According to the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2010, psychological misconduct includes verbal abuse, insults, neglect, threat that leads to mental disturbance or even harassment. This has been defined in section 3 of the Act.
6 months to 2 years imprisonment or fine from TK 10,000 to 1 lac.
You can report to your nearest police station or alternatively you can seek help from the national help line for violence against women and children. The help line number is 109 and it is a toll free number that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The helpline center offers legal advice, police assistance and in addition, there is also a psychosocial counsellor to give telephone counselling service. After being aware of the problem, the help line center immediately communicates the service provider of the victim’s area and coordinate things at the earliest.
Is Anyone Blackmailing You Online With Photos?
Maya had a boyfriend with whom she was soon to be married. Both families went as far as to fix the day and date of the wedding.
Maya discovers that her soon to be husband has ill intentions and is unfaithful. Consequently, she breaks up with him and calls off the marriage.
It soon transpires, that the boyfriend has circulated a morphed photoshopped image of Maya on social media inbox to his friends. Maya’s face was put in obscene images.
There was also a video on pornographic websites of Maya changing her clothes, which he recorded secretly without her knowing.
She was also asked for an amount of TK 10 lakhs if she wanted the videos to disappear and save her reputation.
If you were Maya what would you do?
Step 1 : Where to complain ?
Nearest Police Station. As the offence is cognizable, complain will be lodged under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of Pornography Control Act 2012 , Section 29(1) of the Digital Security Act 2018 . This will be deemed as a FIR under S 154 of CRPC 1898, and in colloquial language, it will be the initiation of a “CASE”. The police officer in charge has the power to investigate and make arrests without a court order and warrant. The police officer noting down the complaint must read it out to complainant after it is recorded, in order to ensure that the statement provided is correct. Only after that Maya should sign the FIR.
Step 2: Court proceedings
Police will investigate, submit report to the court. Maya will have to testify at trial and follow up through out the judicial process.
Step 3: Redress
If Maya’s case is proven in a court of law/tribunal, then the accused will be sentenced to
- S8(1) of PCA 2012 -rigorous imprisonment of upto 7 years and upto Taka 2 lakh fine
- S8(2) of PCA 2012 -rigorous imprisonment of upto 5 years and upto Taka 2 lakh fine
- S8(2) of PCA 2012 – rigorous imprisonment of upto 5 years and upto Taka 2 lakh fine
- S29(1) of Digital Security act 2018 3 years imprisonment or upto 5 lakh Taka Fine or Both
By SumayaBakhshBBC Monitoring, 9 Sep 2018.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45449978
In another report by un,Coalition airstrikes have been the cause of the majority of the 17,223 civilian casualties – 6,660 dead and 10,563 injured
 Hrw.org https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/yemen, world report 2019.word According to world report 2019. Human rights watch, 14 million people are at risk of starvation and death due to cholera,3 million women and girls are at risk of violence and 6872 children have been killed. Saudi used banned cluster munition provided by UK.
 Islamic human rights commissionhttps://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/11476-war-in-yemen/
2 Security Council Resolution 2216 (2015), UN Doc. S/RES/2216, 14 April 2015, preambularpara.10; Resolution 2266 (2016), UN Doc. S/RES/2266, 24 February 2016, preambularpara.11; Resolution 2342 (2017), UN Doc. S/RES/2342, 23 February 2017, preambularpara.11; UN Resolution 2402 (2018), Doc. S/RES/2402, 26 February 2018, preambularpara. 11
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/saudi-led-coalition-admits-to-bombing-yemen-funeral staff and agencies published 15 Oct 2016
Lord justice Irwin, Singh, sir Terence Etherton
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CAAT-v-Secretary-of-State-and-Others-Open-12-June-2019. pdfhttps://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2019/07/uk-government-must-reconsider-arms-export-licences-to-saudi-arabia, Mayer brown July 9, 2019
R (LordCarlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  AC 945 at  and , Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman  1 AC 153 at  and , A v Secretary of State for the Home Department  2 AC 68 at , Bank Mellat v HM Treasury  AC 700 at  and Harrow Community Support Limited v. Secretary of State for Defence  EWHC 1921 (Admin), Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC  A.C. 1014, R (on the application of Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 1662 (QB);  3 All E.R
in para 58,59, Tameside MBC, Balajigari
The ECtHR in Saadi v Italy (2009) 49 EHHR 30, NA v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHHR 15, and in Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 9, and the Court of Appeal in MS (Bangladesh) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1258,
R (EM (Eritrea)) v SSHD  AC 134 (UKSC),
Para 109 of judgment of Caat v secretary o state for international trade.
SAMUEL PERLO-FREEMAN on FEBRUARY 28, 2018 on who is arming the Yemen war? World peace foundation https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2018/02/28/who-is-arming-the-yemen-war-and-is-anyone-planning-to-stop/
United Nations report found that the UK, USA, and France may be complicit in war crimes in Yemen.
CAAT news, magazine,
internationalarms sales to Saudi Arabia, July-September 2019. Issue 253
 The guardian 9/7/2019
CNBC, writer- David Reid, published Sep 20, 2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/oil-drone-attack-damage-revealed-at-saudi-aramco-facility.html
Al Jazeera news Yemen 20 Sep 2019https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/houthis-stop-attacks-saudi-arabia-190920183802126.html
NGOs, human rights organizations adduced evidence of such heinous crimes of being produced by the exporter country and to give effect to that evidence.
In December 2008 the Member States of the EU adopted the Council Common Position 2008/944/CGSP of 8 December 2008 “defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment” (“the EU Common Position”).
: Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination as well as respect by that country for international humanitarian law.
(c) deny an export license if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law
“While Member States, where appropriate, may also take into account the effect of proposed exports on their economic, social, commercial and industrial interests, these factors shall not affect the application of the above criteria.
Article 13 provides that “the User’s Guide to the European Code of Conduct on Exports of Military Equipment” shall serve as guidance for the implementation of the EU Common Position.
Jamie Doward, 22 Sep 2019, Guardian newspaper.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/22/supreme-court-verdict-boris-johnson-prorogation,
Bbc news, 24 Sep,https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261, cherry/miller no2.
 Would parliament void all rules? Does it mean more arms deal?
Safer world( Brexit and future of arms control) file:///C:/Users//Downloads/brexit-and-the-future-of-uk-arms-transfer-controls-final.pdf
Serious violations of international humanitarian law include grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Each Convention contains definitions of what constitutes grave breaches (Articles 50, 51, 130, 147 respectively). Articles 11 and 85 of Additional Protocol I of 1977
ICC or ICT, ICJ ECtHR
 Senior Researcher at PRIF’s Research Department “International Security” and Member of the Executive Board on violating ATT
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions sets out a general humanitarian principle by which all parties to a non-international armed conflict should abide. Each warring party must treat persons taking no active part in the hostilities humanely in all circumstances. Article 13 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions states that the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations
 US-north Korea tensions on nuclear war, Iran, Russia, China, UK-trade war
WW2- Hitler rage on innocent Jews.