skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: canadian association against impunity caai anvil mining ltd

> Refine results with advanced case search

679 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 122 of 136   next > last >>

Da Costa: The Prosecutor v. Agustinho da Costa

Judgement, 11 Oct 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. These crimes intensified in the wake of the referendum conducted in August 1999 in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence.

It was in the wake of this referendum that members of the Team Pancasila Atsabe militia, including the Accused Agustinho Da Costa, were ordered to locate and kill a known independence supporter who was working for the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). Their initial search being unsuccessful, they located the victim on the following day and proceeded to beat him with rocks and fire multiple shots until he died. His daughter witnesses the entire incident.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Da Costa for his role in the murder and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The Panel was not persuaded by Da Costa’s line of defence that held that he was acting under duress, as he could have resisted joining the militia and could have escaped up until the moment of the attack.


De Deus (Marcurious José): The Public Prosecutor v. Marcurious José de Deus

Sentencing Judgement, 18 Apr 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) together with local militia groups perpetrated a number of crimes against the Timorese population, especially independence supporters.

The Accused, Marcurious José de Deus, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. In 1999, he and other militia members were ordered by their superiors to murder a woman who had openly revolted against the militia after its members had killed her son. De Deus, just 22 years old at the time, carried out the orders by repeatedly stabbing the mother as she grieved over the corpse of her son with a kitchen knife. He was convicted of murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. The offence, which usually carries with it a punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment, was reduced in the case of de Deus to 5 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panels took into consideration his young age, the climate of violence which existed in East Timor at the time, that the Accused was acting on orders and that he pleaded guilty to the offence and expressed genuine remorse.


Evans et al.: Regina v. Evans et al.

Decision following submissions of no case to answer, 3 Nov 2005, General Court Martial, Colchester, Great Britain (UK)

Seven U.K. soldiers were on patrol in Iraq on 11 May 2003, with the mission to look out for and halt persons attempting to smuggle money via neighbouring Iran. In the afternoon, a white Toyota pick-up truck came near to their checkpoint, but then drove away as if it was trying to avoid it. The patrollers decided to chase the car. They followed it until the village of Al-Ferkah, where they boxed the car with their vehicles. What happened then, is not entirely clear; what is known, though, is that force was used against both occupants; they were later taken to a hospital, but one of them, the 18 year old Nadhem Abdullah, was severely injured at his head and therefore sent to the Basra hospital for specialist treatment. Somewhere during the trip he died as consequence of his injuries. The U.K. military prosecutor accused the seven soldiers – a Corporal and six Privates under his command – of murder and violent disorder.

The judge found that there were serious issues with the evidence; most of the witness statements were either exaggerated or plain lies. Although it could be established that Abdullah had been assaulted by the accused’s section, it was unclear whether their use of force – which was in principle allowed, as part of their mission to bring an end to smuggling and other armed activities compromising security in the area – had been unlawful in the current case. Furthermore, no individual soldier could be identified as the person dealing the fatal blow, and no one could be individually found to have joined or encouraged an unlawful assault. Hence, all seven were acquitted of all charges.


Bancoult v. McNamara: Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 21 Apr 2006, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, 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 a decision of 21 December 2004, the District Court for the District of Columbia held that the case was not justiciable as it required the judiciary to review political questions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court. 


Kouwenhoven: The Public Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven

Judgment, 7 Jun 2006, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands

During the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003), Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven owned the Royal Timber Corporation and had an important position in the Oriental Timber Cooperation. Corporations like Kouwenhoven’s were an important source of income for the regime of Charles Taylor, and a close financial relationship developed between Taylor and Kouwenhoven.

On 7 June 2006, the Dutch Public Prosecutor charged Kouwenhoven with war crimes and with violation of the national regulation which implemented international prohibitions of supplying weapons to Liberia. The District Court acquitted Kouwenhoven of war crimes in first instance, stating that the link between him and those who actually committed the crimes was insufficiently substantiated. However, Kouwenhoven was convicted for his involvement in illegally supplying Taylor with weapons. According to the Court there was sufficient evidence that ships, owned by the OTC, within which Kouwenhoven held a prominent position, shipped weapons into the port of Buchanan, which was managed by OTC. These acts, the Court reasoned, did not only violate Dutch laws but also the international legal order. Given the serious consequences of supplying the Taylor regime with weapons, Kouwenhoven was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment: the maximum sentence. 


<< first < prev   page 122 of 136   next > last >>