skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: polyukhovich commonwealth australia 'war crimes act case'

> Refine results with advanced case search

711 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 110 of 143   next > last >>

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

Judgement, 15 May 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

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. 


Leki (Joseph): The Prosecutor v. Joseph Leki

Judgement, 11 Jun 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of crimes were perpetrated by the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups. These crimes were largely directed against the Timorese civilian population, in particular, against those individuals suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused in the present case, Joseph Leki, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. As part of his involvement with the militia, he took part in two attacks in September 1999 in which groups of Timorese individuals were surrounded and fired upon by the militia whilst they were resting. As a result of these attacks, four individuals were killed. 

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Leki for all four murders. Although in three of the four, he had not actually fired the shot, the Panels held him responsible for having contributed logistically and morally to the commission of the crimes by other members of the militia group. In the fourth instance, although Leki had fired the shot, the Panels excluded his responsibility as a principal perpetrator because he had been threatened with death if he did not follow the order to shoot. However, he remained liable on the same grounds as for the other three murders. The Special Panels sentenced Leki to 13 years’ imprisonment. The case is the first one in which the defence of duress was upheld although Leki was convicted anyway.


Gacumbitsi: The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi

Judgment, 17 Jun 2004, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Trial Chamber III), Tanzania

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

The Accused in the present case, Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, was the mayor of Rusumo commune. He used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Gacumbitsi of genocide and the crimes against humanity of rape and extermination. He was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. 


Gacumbitsi: Sylvestre Gacumbitsi v. The Prosecutor

Judgement, 7 Jul 2006, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana in April 1994, ethnic tensions reignited the conflict in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations.

By a decision of 17 June 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, the former mayor of Rusumo commune, of genocide and crimes against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber found that Gacumbitsi had used his position of authority to meet with high ranking members within the commune and perpetuate a policy of extermination against the Tutsi population. He received weapons and distributed them to Hutus within the commune. He instigated the Hutu population to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women. On appeal by the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify a number of important areas of law including the law applicable to instigation and rape as a crime against humanity. The Chamber dismissed all of Gacumbitsi’s grounds of appeal but entered new convictions for murder as a crime against humanity. Gacumbitsi’s sentence was increased to life imprisonment.


Lipietz et al.: Mme L and Others

Judgment, 21 Dec 2007, Conseil d’Etat, France

Georges Lipietz and his half-brother were arrested in southern France in 1944 on account of their Jewish descent. They were deported to an internment camp at Drancy via Toulouse and Paris.

Although the internment camp was liberated in August 1944 and the Lipietz brothers were freed, they sued the French state and the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for complicity in their deportation, as they had been transported by French rail and detained at the authority of the Home Secretary. Having initially won their case before the Administrative Court of Toulouse and having been awarded 61 000 Euros in damages, the decision was reversed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux.

On appeal to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that it was not competent to hear the appeal because the SNCF at the relevant time in question was a private company under the command of the German authorities and not exercising its own public authority. It is for the judicial order, and not the administrative one, to decide on the matter. 


<< first < prev   page 110 of 143   next > last >>