683 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 115 of
137
next >
last >>
Kasa: The Prosecutor v. Leonardus Kasa
Judgement, 9 May 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
The Indonesian occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002 gave rise to a number of attacks on the Timorese civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters.
The Accused, Leonardus Kasa, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. He was brought before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for having allegedly raped an East Timorese woman. He contended that the relationship was not based on coercion and in any event the Special Panels could not hear his case as it fell outside their jurisdiction, the alleged rape having been committed in West Timor. The Special Panels agreed, finding that under the constitutive instruments of the Panels and the applicable law, there was no jurisdiction to try the case. It would have to be dealt with by an Indonesian court.
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.
Soaeres (Fransisco): The Prosecutor v. Francisco Soares
Judgement, 12 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, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and local militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters. In 1999, the crimes increased particularly in the wake of the referendum in which the majority of the Timorese people voted in favour of independence.
It was within this general climate of fear that the Accused, Francisco Soaeres, a member of the TNI, raped a woman on a beach. He had previously taken her away from the army base where she was being detained on the pretext of moving her to another town, but had instead taken her to the beach. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Soaeres of rape and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment. The case was the first conviction for rape by the Special Panels.
Rasul v. Bush: Shafiq Rasul et al v. George W. Bush, President of the United States/Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah et al v. George W. Bush
Opinion, 28 Jun 2004, Supreme Court, United States
In this landmark case, fourteen Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, requesting judicial review of their indefinite detention without charges.
Revisiting the holding in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that US courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in the course of armed conflict and subsequently detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Rasul was found to differ from Eisentrager in the “plenary and exclusive jurisdiction” held by the US over Guantanamo; the Court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges from Guantanamo detainees under the terms of the general federal habeas statute.
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 115 of
137
next >
last >>