Search results

The Ad Hoc Tribunal found the defendant guilty of grave human rights violations in the form of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. Adam Damiri was the most senior and last of 18 military men and civilians to be brought before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal, which has sentenced only six of the 18, none of whom served any time in prison as part of their sentences. Damiri’s verdict effectively brought the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal to a close.

The judgement was deemed rather controversial by many human rights organizations. Firstly, because of what was considered a lenient judgment entered against the defendant, and secondly, the subsequent overturning of the judgment and the release of the defendant one year later. Human Rights Watch repeatedly requested that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commission a report by a group of experts to review the work of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR) and that of the Ad Hoc Tribunal regarding the situation in East Timor in 1999.

The rulings of the Ad Hoc Tribunal were also deemed as sign that there was a lack of political will in Indonesia to holds its highest military servicemen accountable for their actions under international humanitarian law. Indonesia has also been heavily criticised for allowing a convicted human rights abuser - though this judgment was later overturned - to be involved in yet another conflict, after Damiri was re-assigned to another province of Indonesia in order to fight another secessionist movement.

Indonesia’s invasion of Timor-Leste in 1975 marked the beginning of almost 25 years of immense atrocities and human rights abuses, resulting in the deaths of nearly one-third of the population of Timor-Leste from starvation, disease, and the use of napalm. Indonesia eventually withdrew in 1999 following international pressure; Timor-Leste achieved full independence in 2002. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes was established to prosecute persons responsible for the serious crimes committed in 1999, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual offenses and torture.

The Accused, Barros and Mendonca, were members of the Laksaur militia, an armed group aimed at suppressing Timorese supporters of independence. The Panel convicted the Accused for two counts of murder, attempted murder and persecution carried out as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the population of East Timor, who had voted in favour of Timorese independence from Indonesia. Although neither of the Accused had carried out the acts themselves, they were liable as members of a joint criminal enterprise whose purpose was to suppress pro-independence supporters. 

Mirko Todorović was born on 15 May 1954 in the village of Bratunac in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Miloš Radić was born on 5 June 1959 in the village of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Todorović and Radić were found guilty of participating in an attack conducted in Bratunac on 20 May 1992, which was directed against Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians. On that day, Todorović and four other members of the Serbian army arrested 14 Bosniak civilians and brought them to a house where one of the civilians was killed. Todorović, together with Radić, did not allow the other civilians to leave the house. The civilians were beaten, cursed, and their money and valuable items were taken away. Subsequently, the civilians were brought to a slope on a nearby creek, lined up and killed.

It is well accepted in international law that Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity from prosecution by virtue of the office that they hold. This immunity extends to acts committed in an official capacity whilst in office, after they have left office. In recent years, however, this concept of functional immunity has been challenged by allegations that former government officials have committed international crimes whilst in office. In what has been hailed as a ‘landmark’ decision, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland considered that the former Algerian Minister of Defence, who is charged with having committed war crimes and torture whilst in office in 1992-1993, is not entitled to immunity before the Swiss courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that it would be contrary for international law to prohibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as fundamental norms but then to allow for a broad interpretation of functional immunity the result of which would be that beneficiaries of this immunity would be immune from prosecution even where they allegedly committed such crimes.