skip navigation

(Photo provided courtesy of the American University Washington College of Law, War Crimes Research Office)

(Photo provided courtesy of the American University Washington College of Law, War Crimes Research Office)

The Prosecutor v. Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere alias Manuel Leto Bere

Court Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Case number 10/2000
Decision title Judgement
Decision date 15 May 2001
Parties
  • The Public Prosecutor
  • Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere alias Manuel Leto Bere
Categories Human rights violations
Keywords Murder
Links
Other countries involved
  • Indonesia
back to top

Summary

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those believed to be independence supporters.

In September 1999, the Accused, Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere, was a member of the Dadurus Merah Putih pro-autonomy militia group. Whilst in West Timor, he was ordered by the militia chief to arrest Joao Gonsalves, a known independence supporter. Gonsalves was arrested and then driven to a river by the Accused and other individuals, including members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) who often worked with the militia groups, to a river. Once there, the Accused stabbed Goncalves in the chest with his samurai sword immediately killing him. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. 

back to top

Procedural history

On 11 December 2000, the Public Prosecutor indicted the Accused, Manuel Goncalves Leto Bere, with the charge of murder as a domestic offense contrary to Section 8 of UNTAET Regulation 2000/15 and Article 340 of the Indonesian Penal Code.

The preliminary hearing commenced on 6 February 2001 and concluded on 14 February 2001. On this latter, the Accused made a statement to the effect that he was forced to stab the victim by members of the militia and he was threatened to remain silent by members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI).

The trial commenced on 19 April 2001 and concluded on 20 April 2001.

back to top

Related developments

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Special Panels in its judgement of 16 October 2003.

back to top

Legally relevant facts

The Accused was a member of the Dadurus Merah Putih (DMP) militia group, occupying the position of platoon commander in charge of 30 subordinates (p. 6).

In September 1999, whilst the Accused was in West Timor, he received orders from the chief of the DMP to arrest Joao Gonsalves, a known independence supporter. After being maltreated, Gonsalves was forced into a vehicle by the Accused and other militia members and driven to Nunura Bridge in East Timor. There, Gonsalves was forcibly removed from the car and pulled towards the river. One of the group was armed with a rifle; the Accused was armed with a samurai sword. At the riverbank, the Accused stabbed Goncalves in the chest with his sword, killing him (p. 5).

back to top

Core legal questions

  • What are the requirements for a mistake of fact to exclude criminal responsibility? 

back to top

Specific legal rules and provisions

  • Section 8 of UNTAET Regulation 2000/15.
  • Section 24 of UNTAET Regulation 2000/30.
  • Articles 340 of the Penal Code of Indonesia.

back to top

Court's holding and analysis

 In defence, the Accused maintains that he believed the victim to be dead already and it was not until he placed him in the car for transport that he realised that the victim was alive (p. 6). The Special Panel considers that this mistake of fact alleged by the Accused is unproved and groundless. In any event, a mistake of fact only excludes criminal responsibility if it negates the mental element required by the crime, pursuant to Section 24 of UNTAET Regulation 2000/30. There is no doubt that the Accused realised that the victim was alive and had to be executed before they arrived at Nunura River (p. 9). The Accused possessed the necessary intent for murder: when he stabbed the victim in the chest with the sword, he clearly desired the death of the victim. His conduct was premeditated as he accepted the chief’s plan to kill the victim and proceeded to carry this out by taking the victim by car, escorting him towards the river and stabbing him (p. 10).

The Accused was convicted of murder by the Special Panels (p.11) and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment (p. 13).

back to top

Further analysis

back to top

Instruments cited