608 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 113 of
122
next >
last >>
Leki (Gaspard): The Prosecutor v. Gaspard Leki
Judgement, 14 Sep 2002, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and numerous militia groups perpetrated a number of abuses against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly those believed to be independence supporters.
The Accused, Gaspard Leki, was a TNI member. In September 1999, Leki was under orders to attack a Timorese village, to burn down the houses and to shoot the civilians. In the course of carrying out these orders, he and five militia members under his command came across a group of persons hiding out in a nearby cave. These persons were forced by Leki to abandon the cave and follow him to another village. During this movement, Leki fired a shot at a target some 200 metres away, believing it to be a pig. In fact, the target was a human being who died as a result of the shot. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes considered that the mistake made by Leki as to the identity of the target he was shooting at acquits him of murder as he did not possess the necessary intention to kill another individual, as required by the applicable law. However, he was convicted for negligence as the Panel considered that Leki should have exercised greater caution in shooting. He was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment.
Bancoult v. McNamara: Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al.
Memorandum Opinion, 30 Sep 2002, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.
In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 30 September 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on procedural grounds, namely that it required further submissions with regards to the exercise of jurisdiction over the claim considering its implication of the United States, a party that ordinarily cannot be sued unless there has been an implicit or explicit waiver of immunity.
Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa: Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa et al./Alvarez-Machain v. The United States of America (rehearing en banc)
Opinion (rehearing en banc), 3 Jun 2003, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, United States
In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico.
Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals (including Jose Francisco Sosa) involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The Court of Appeal confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. In the current en banc hearing and opinion the Court of Appeal affirmed its earlier conclusion concerning Sosa, and also established liability of the United States: Machain's arrest, planned by the DEA in the United States, was found unlawful.
Guterres: The Prosecutor v. Aparicio Guterres a.k.a. Mau Buti
Judgement, 28 Feb 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975. Members of its armed forces (TNI) along with approximately 20 militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign to terrorise the civilian population, in particular alleged supporters of Timorese independence.
The Accused was a member of the DMP (Dadurus Merah Putih) militia which, in September 1999, was ordered to accompany a Sergeant in the TNI to kill persons who had escaped from a previous massacre. However, the Prosecution was unable to find any witnesses who could attest to the murder of any individuals or the Accused’s involvement. The only eyewitness changed his story multiple times. Consequently, the Special Panel acquitted the Accused of the crime against humanity of murder.
John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.
Memorandum, 2 Mar 2006, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.
After the District Court allowed the case to proceed in part, the plaintiffs presented an amended complaint, which was assessed again by the District Court. It allowed most of these claims, which were based on the laws of the District of Columbia, to proceed. US law should be applied, the Court reasoned, because Exxon Mobil was based in the United States.
<< first
< prev
page 113 of
122
next >
last >>