Search results

During the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the Serb Army overran a Bosniak settlement on 2 June 1992, two brothers took part in beating a group of approximately 20 to 30 Bosniak men. The Court convicted them for war crimes against civilians. As some of the victims were injured, and all of them had surrendered, when the brother started their onslaught, they had attained the status of civilian under international humanitarian law. The Court heavily relied on witness statements to establish that the brothers had intentionally targeted Bosniaks, in the context of the armed conflict, and that they had intentionally inflicted severe pain on them. Zoran Damjanović was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Goran Damjanović was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment, as he was also convicted for illegal manufacturing and trade of weapons or explosive materials.   

During the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the Serb Army overran a Bosniak settlement on 2 June 1992, two brothers took part in beating a group of approximately 20 to 30 Bosniak men. In first-instance, the Court convicted them of war crimes against civilians but the brothers appealed against this verdict. The defence had branded several witness testimonies to be inconsistent and contradictory, but the Court’s Appeal Panel held in second instance that the testimonies were consistent on the most important aspects. Discrepancies were explainable, according to the Appeal Panel, and to this extend the appeal was rejected. However, Goran Damjanović had also been convicted for illegal manufacturing and trade of weapons or explosive substances, and the Appeal Panel considered it unproven that the weapons found in his family’s home belonged to him. To that extend, the verdict was revoked and a re-trial ordered.

Abilio Soares was governor of East Timor at the time violence broke out in East Timor before, during and after the referendum on independence of Indonesia.

On 20 February 2002 he was indicted on two charges of crimes against humanity: murder and assault/persecution. He was charged with command responsibility for the failings and actions of his subordinates and militias, in relation to events during which anti-independence militias committed massacres, such as in the church in Liquica on 6 April 1999, at the house of pro-independence leader Manuel Carrascalao on 17 April 1999, at the residence of the Bishop of Belo on 6 September 1999 and in the church in Suai on 6 September 1999. In each one of these instances, he was accused of not having exercised his authority in order to prevent these crimes from taking place.

The Court considered that, under command responsibility, Abilio Soares was criminally responsible for the human rights violations perpetrated by his subordinates. To come to this conclusion, the Court considered the following elements: his subordinates were under Soares’ effective control and authority, but he did not exert appropriate and proper control over them;  Abilio Soares was aware, or consciously disregarded information relating to these events, as he was informed of these events by subordinates; and that Soares took no action against those district heads under his control who had committed the murders and assaults (for example to prevent or stop the acts or surrender the perpetrators to authorities for investigation and prosecution).

The Court sentenced Abilio Soares to 3 years’ imprisonment, significantly lower than the minimum sentence of 10 years. 

Following violent clashes between two groups, one in favor of independence of East Timor and one against it, approximately two thousand pro-independence activists seek refuge in the church of Liquiça. An attack by an anti-independence militia causes the death and injury of many. It is claimed that several soldiers took part in the attacks. The commander of some of these soldiers, Intelligence Task Force officer Sudrajat, was present in Liquiça. Can he be held responsible for what happened?

Not according to the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor. The involvement of his personnel could not be established and the Tribunal considered the militia to be completely separate from the military. Thus, the Tribunal established that he had had no effective control over those who actually committed the crimes against humanity. Neither did it consider proven that he assisted in what happened. According to the Tribunal, he was there to look for a solution and tried to stop the actual attack to the best of his abilities. Sudrajat was acquitted, which added to the international community’s concern about the effectiveness of the Tribunal.

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.