Search results

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. In the course of this occupation, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) collaborated with local militia groups for the purposes of identifying, questioning and attacking alleged or known independence supporters.

In 1999, the Accused, Francisco dos Santos Laku, was a member of the TNI. He travelled in a convoy of cars to a militia checkpoint, with an individual in custody. The individual was then handed over to the militia members who were to question and then to kill him, on Laku’s orders.

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of murder, contrary to the criminal law applicable at the time. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. Interestingly, although the Panel made findings as to the widespread and systematic nature of the crimes perpetrated by the militia, neither the indictment nor the final judgement charged the Accused with murder as a crime against humanity, a more serious offence.

In the first appeals judgment from a case before the Special Panels for Serious Crimes, the Court of Appeal of East Timor was seized by Joao Fernandez, a member of the Dadurus Merah militia group, which operated in East Timor during Indonesia’s occupation of the latter. Fernandez had been convicted by the Special Panels and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for murder after he pleaded guilty to stabbing a village chief twice in the back with his samurai sword until the chief died.

On appeal, he argued that the fact that he was acting on the orders of the militia chief and the Indonesian Armed Forces should have secured his acquittal before the Special Panels. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding that, on the basis of the proven facts, Fernandez did intentionally and with premeditation murder the village chief. The Indonesian Penal Code does not provide that superior orders may exclude criminal responsibility, unless those orders were given by a competent authority. Neither the militia chief nor the Indonesian Armed Forces had the legal competence to order the killing of individuals, nor was Fernandez under a legal obligation to follow those orders. The Court of Appeal also upheld his sentence. 

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In March 2003, the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaints as non-justiciable based on the ‘political question doctrine’ (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions).

In August 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the complaints raised a non-justiciable political question. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of the fact that the President is entrusted by the Constitution to render as enemy property the private property of an alien situated in a foreign country.

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. Furthermore, the case presented a non-justiciable political question (which foresees that courts have no authority to hear or adjudge on matters that raise political, rather than legal, questions). This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

The Afghani Heshamuddin (or Hesamuddin) Hesam applied for political asylum in the Netherlands in 1996, but this was refused due to suspicion of his involvement in torture and war crimes during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. However, Hesam stayed in the Netherlands, and after investigations he was arrested in 2004. The Hague District Court convicted him for war crimes and torture committed by him as head of the military intelligence agency KhaD-e-Nezami (KhAD) and as superior for failing to prevent these crimes from being committed by his subordinates. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. Consequently, Hesam appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the previous courts had erred in law on several points. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, and held that Dutch courts had jurisdiction over the crime, that prosecution was admissible, that the crimes were not time-barred (as Dutch law excludes war crimes from becoming so), and that the convictions had been in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.