The Prosecutor v. Anton Lelan Sufa et al.
| Court |
District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor |
| Case number |
04 (a,b,c)/2003 |
| Decision title |
Combined Judgments |
| Decision date |
16 November 2004 |
| Parties |
- The Prosecutor
- Anton Lelan Sufa
- Agostinho Cloe
- Agostino Cab
- Lazarus Fuli
- Lino Beno
- Anton Lelan Simao
- Domingos Metan
|
| Categories |
Crimes against humanity |
| Links |
|
back to topSummary
Anton Lelan Sufa, Agostinho Cloe, Agostino Cab, Lazarus Fuli, Lino Beno, Anton Lelan Simao and Domingos Metan were members of the ‘Sakunar’ militia, which was organised and controlled by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia (AFRI), operating within East Timor in 1999 to terrorize civilians who supported East Timor’s independence from Indonesia. The leader of the “Sakunar” militia for Bebo village was Anton Lelan Sufa. On 16 September 1999, in the village of Netensuan, Anton Lelan Sufa ordered the co-accused to attack Anton Beto, Leonardo Anin and Francisco Beto, civilians who supported independence. Anton Beto and Leonardo Anin were both killed by militia members, and Francisco Beto was tied up and severely beaten for about half an hour. These acts were part of a country-wide campaign of violence to intimidate and punish independence supporters.
All men were indicted with murder and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. Lelan Sufa was charged with multiple forms of liability for these acts, namely both individual responsibility and superior responsibility, because he had ordered the acts. The Court held that Anton Lelan Sufa bears both individual as superior responsibility with regard to the crime of murder as crime against humanity. With regard to the inhumane acts as crime against humanity, he bears superior responsibility by failing to prevent the crime and to punish his subordinates while he had effective control over the militia members, individual responsibility by ordering the crime and individual responsibility by committing the crime.
All accused entered guilty pleas and were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 to 7 years.
back to topProcedural history
Anton Lelan Sufa, Agostinho Cloe, Agostino Cab, Lazarus Fuli, Lino Beno, Anton Lelan Simao, Domingos Metan and Lazarus Tael were indicted on 15 February 2003 and each charged with murder and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. An amended indictment was filed on 23 July 2004 that no longer included Lazarus Tael.
The trial commenced on 22 October 2003. After several accused pleaded guilty, and others did not, the case was severed and renumbered case 4, 4a, 4b, 4c/2003. In the end, all accused entered guilty pleas.
back to topLegally relevant facts
Anton Lelan Sufa, Agostinho Cloe, Agostino Cab, Lazarus Fuli, Lino Beno, Anton Lelan Simao and Domingos Metan were members of the ‘Sakunar’ militia, which was organised and controlled by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia (AFRI), operating within East Timor in 1999 to terrorize civilians who supported East Timor’s independence from Indonesia. The leader of the “Sakunar” militia for Bebo village was Anton Lelan Sufa, with the co-accused occupying various positions of power in the militia.
On 16 September 1999, in the village of Netensuan, Anton Lelan Sufa ordered the co-accused to attack Anton Beto, Leonardo Anin and Francisco Beto, civilians who supported independence. Anton Lelan Sufa ordered Agostinho Cloe, Lino Beno and Domingos Metan to kill Anton Beto. Agostinho Cab shot an arrow in Beto’s throat, and Lino Beno and Domingos Metan stabbed him with large knives. Beto died within minutes as a result of his wounds. Anton Lelan Sufa ordered Agostingo Cloe, Lazarus Fuli and Antonio Lelan to kill Leonardo Anin. Antonio Lelan stabbed Anin with a machete and Fuli stabbed him with a knife, leading to Anin’s death. Francisco Beto was tied up and severely beaten and kicked by Agostinho Cloe, Lazarus Fuli, Lino Beno and Domingos Metan for about half an hour.
These acts were part of a country-wide campaign of violence to intimidate and punish independence supporters, especially after the East-Timoreze population voted for independence in the 1999 referendum (judgment Case 4/2003, p. 4-5).
back to topCore legal questions
- Can an accused be charged and/ or be held responsible with several forms of liability (individual criminal responsibility and superior responsibility) for the same fact?
back to topSpecific legal rules and provisions
- Sections 14.3(b) and 16 of UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/30.
back to topCourt's holding and analysis
The Court held that Anton Lelan Sufa bears individual as well as superior responsibility with regard to the crime of murder as crime against humanity (judgment case 4a/2003, p. 6). With regard to the inhumane acts as crime against humanity, he bears superior responsibility, individual responsibility by ordering the crime and individual responsibility by committing the crime (judgment case 4a/2003, p. 9-10).
Lelan Sufa bears command/superior responsibility in both cases, (pursuant to Sec. 16, Regulation 2000/30) because he had effective control over the militia members committed the killings, and because he neither prevented the commission of the criminal acts nor punished his subordinates afterwards (judgment case 4a/2003, para 16-17).
When arguing how to treat this concurrence (coinciding) of individual and superior responsibility, the Court chooses to distance itself from the solutions chosen by the international tribunals such as the ICTY and ICTR, and held that: “when certain facts of the case support both types of liability, one of them cannot simply be “characterized” as another or “subsumed” under the provision of the other, because this would imply that the Court has some sort of discretion to choose one or the other, although this would violate one of the basic principles of criminal law, apart from Sec. 12.2 Reg. 2000/15. Rather, in a first stage, it has to be acknowledged that both types of criminal responsibility exist, and in a second stage it must be decided whether they continue to co-exist or whether one is displaced by the other.” For this reason, the Court took recourse to a legal instrument used in civil law jurisdictions to solve concurrence (judgment case 4a/2003, para 20-22).
On 16 November 2004, following guilty pleas by each of the accused, Cloe, Cab, Fuli and Lelan (04-2003) were sentenced to prisons terms ranging from 4 to 5 years, Beno (04b-2003) was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment and Metan (04c-2003) was also sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. On 25 November 2004, having also pleaded guilty, Anton Lelan Sufa was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.
back to topFurther analysis
back to topInstruments cited
back to topAdditional materials
