News 24 Jun. 2021
Curtis successfully defends foreign states' procedural privileges in the UK Supreme Court
News 23 Jun. 2021
Ibrahim Elsadig joins Curtis as Partner in Dubai
Client Alert 24 Feb. 2022
EU, UK, Japan and Australia Impose Sanctions on Russia
News 09 Aug. 2021
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle enters into association with Chevalier Law in Singapore.
News 06 May. 2022
Curtis Advises Terna Group on the Sale of its Latin America Power Transmission Assets to CDPQ
Publications 05 May. 2022
Marie-Claire Argac, Simon Batifort, and Cyprien Mathié share highlights from “Affaires d’Etats: Practical Considerations When Defending States in International Arbitration” on Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Event 26 Apr. 2022
Claudia Frutos-Peterson Speaks at CAI Costa Rica’s 13th Congress of International Arbitration
News 21 Apr. 2022
SCOTUS Upholds U.S. Colonialism under the U.S. Constitution
Client Alert 23 Mar. 2022
The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has launched the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022
Event 22 Nov. 2021
Partner Antonia Birt spoke at ADGMAC and AIAC Webinar Series: Webinar 5 - Disputes in Fintech and Complex Technology in MESEA
News 19 May. 2022
Eliot Lauer’s and Juan Perla’s Tenth Circuit Arguments Featured on Audio Arguendo Podcast
News 16 May. 2022
Curtis Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief for Ohio Justice & Policy Center in Prisoners’ Rights Case
Client Alert 21 Apr. 2022
New Laws Targeting Assets of Russian Oligarchs: The U.S. Announces Task Force KleptoCapture and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program
Client Alert 19 Apr. 2022
U.S. President Biden Expands Export Controls Imposed on Russia and Belarus
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
News 08 Nov. 2021
New York, November 8, 2021 – Acting as pro bono counsel, Curtis filed an amicus brief for the King’s College London Legal Clinic in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to challenge the admissibility of any information derived from torture before the U.S. Military Commissions in Guantanamo Bay.
On May 18, 2021, a military judge ruled in U.S. v. Al-Nashiri that statements purportedly obtained through torture cannot be admitted into evidence at trial, but that the military judge could consider such statements on interlocutory questions – such as to “provide context on a discovery issue in dispute.” The military judge did not consider U.S. obligations under international law, specifically the obligations under the Convention Against Torture and customary international law that prevents states from using evidence derived from torture at any stage of the proceedings against an accused.
The military judge’s ruling has been characterized and condemned as the first publicly known time that prosecutors in Guantanamo Bay have been allowed to use information derived from torture in those proceedings.
On the detainee’s challenge to this ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, eleven law students from the King’s Legal Clinic and their clinical supervisors answered the clarion call to outline for the federal appellate court why admitting evidence derived from torture violates international law. The amicus brief surveys the international law framework for the federal appellate court to outline what the military judge overlooked – simply that the Convention Against Torture applies in the U.S. Military Commissions. Also supporting and signing on to the amicus brief were two former U.N. Special Rapporteurs for Torture, Professors Juan Méndez and Manfred Nowak.
Philippa Webb, an international law scholar, barrister and King’s College London Law School professor who co-authored the submission, stated that “The admission of statements obtained through torture in any proceedings violates rules at the core of international law. The global consensus is overwhelming. I am grateful for the dedication of my colleagues and students and the professionalism of the Curtis team in shining a light on this issue.”
Curtis appellate associate Juan Perla added, “We are honored to assist King’s College Legal Clinic and its associated professors and students in bringing their views to the attention of the D.C. Circuit, especially with respect to fundamental principles of international law such as the prohibition against using evidence obtained through torture .”
The Curtis pro bono appellate team was led by national security law partner Jason Wright and included associates Juan Perla and Allesandra Tyler. The case is In re: Al-Nashiri, Case No. 21-1208 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 15, 2021).
National Security Law
Jason D. Wright
+1 212 696 6000
News 10 May. 2022
Juan Perla’s Argument in D.C. Circuit Featured on Audio Arguendo Podcast