Search results

Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 was characterised by the perpetration of a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly those suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

One such attack occurred on the village of Lourbs in September 1999 when members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and various militias burnt down homes, and wounded and killed a number of persons. In the course of this attack, a young girl was abducted by TNI soldiers and stabbed through the back; her mother was shot through leg as she attempted to save her. The Prosecution alleged that the Accused, Paulino de Jesus, was responsible for the murder of the little girl and indirectly for the wounding of her mother although he is not alleged to have fired the shot.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes acquitted De Jesus on the grounds that the witness evidence did not establish with sufficient certainty either that he was present in the village at the time of the attack, or that he was the author of the charged crimes. 

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan. Having been unsuccessful before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. By its decision of 28 June 2005, the Court of Appeals once again dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine as they would require the Courts to interpret treaties concluded between foreign States. 

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.