662 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 101 of
133
next >
last >>
Suratman: Ad Hoc Public Prosecutor v. Tono Suratman
Judgment, 13 May 2003, Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, Indonesia
Following violent clashes between two groups, one in favor of independence of East Timor and one against it, people of the former group sought refuge. In Liquiça, they hid in a church. In Diri, they hid in the house of one of their foremen. The attacks by an anti-independence militia caused the death and injury of many. It is claimed that several soldiers took part in the attacks. The question was whether the commander, Suratman, present in the area at time of both attacks, could be held responsible for what happened.
According to the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, this could not be done. The involvement of his personnel could not be established and it considered the militia to be completely separate from the military. Thus, the Tribunal established that he had no effective control over those who actually committed the Crimes Against Humanity. The Tribunal could not conclude that Suratman had not taken enough action to prevent human rights violations from taking place. According to the Tribunal, he was there to look for a solution to the best of his abilities. Suratman was acquitted, which added to the international community’s concern about the effectiveness of the Tribunal.
G.
Order of the Second Senate of 24 June 2003, 24 Jun 2003, Bundesverfassungsgericht / Federal Constitution Court, Germany
The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.
On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.
The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.
Soares (Salvador): The Public Prosecutor v. Salvador Soares
Judgement, 9 Dec 2003, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) along with a number of militia groups perpetrated widespread abuses against the civilian population, particularly targeting those known to be or suspected of being pro-independence supporters.
In September 1999, members of the TNI and Dadurus Merah Putih (DMP) militia of which the Accused was a member, surrounded the home of a known independence supporter. In his absence, his relative was dragged outside and beaten with machetes, spears and stones until he died. His brother-in-law, emerging from the neighbouring home, was also targeted – he was shot and stabbed until he too died. The Accused was convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for his participation in the murder of both victims and sentenced to 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted of the charge of torture as the Special Panel found that he did not act with the intent of torturing the victims, but 'solely' with the intent to cause their death.
Doe I et al. v. UNOCAL et al.: John Doe I et al. v. UNOCAL Corp. et al.
Ruling on UNOCAL Defendants' Motion for Judgment, 14 Sep 2004, Superior Court of California, Country of Los Angeles, United States
In 1979, fourteen Burmese villagers filed a complaint against the oil company UNOCAL. They claimed that they suffered abuses including torture and rape during the construction of the Yadana Pipeline. UNOCAL allegedly assisted in the abuses perpetrated by the military government in Rangoon.
The Burmese villagers based their claim on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows US courts to decide cases in respect of foreign nationals for crimes that occurred outside of the US.
In the particular decision, the Superior Court held that even though one of the theories of the Burmese villagers was refused, the case was not dismissed and as a result, they were allowed to proceed with their further theories. On 14 September 2004, the defendants’ motion for judgment was denied.
Cloe et al.: The Deputy Prosecutor General for Serious Crimes v. Agostinho Cloe, Aghostinho Cab, Lazarus Fuli and Antonio Lelan
Judgement, 16 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesian’s who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.
In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (all members of the Sakunar militia) killed two independence supporters – one was attacked with a machete and the other was beaten to death. A third was also severely beaten in plain view of his entire village.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted all the Accused for the crimes against humanity of murder and other inhumane acts; Cab, Fuli and Lelan were sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, Cloe to 4 years. At sentencing, the Court considered that the Accused were victims of the circumstances themselves and attributed responsibility to the Indonesian Armed Forces who pitted local populations against each other in order to secure their power over the Timorese.
<< first
< prev
page 101 of
133
next >
last >>