692 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 132 of
139
next >
last >>
Ena & Ena: The Public Prosecutor v. Umbertus Ena and Carlos Ena
Judgement, 23 Mar 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
The Accused were brothers, Umbertos and Carlos Ena. Both were members of the Sakunar militia group, a pro-autonomy group that operated in East Timor in 1999 in conjunction with other militia groups and the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI). They participated in a countrywide campaign of violence against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons believed to be independence supporters. In September 1999, following the results of a referendum in which the people of East Timor had voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, the Accused and other members of the militia group targeted the village of Nakome with machetes, spears and stones.
The Special Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlos Ena was present or participated in the attack; he was accordingly acquitted. However, Umbertos Ena was convicted for his role in the deaths of two victims and for seriously injuring a third by stoning and stabbing. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.
Gusmao: The Public Prosecutor v. Joanico Gusmao
Judgement, 14 Apr 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 despite the will of the Timorese to gain independence. The Indonesian Armed Forces, together with a number of militia groups, carried out a nationwide campaign intended to terrorise and punish independence supporters.
The Accused was a member of the Laksaur militia group who had perpetrated widespread and systematic attacks against the Timorese people. The Accused was charged with the murder of a known independence supporter, whom he murdered by stabbing in the back with his sword during an attack on the village in which the victim lived. The Accused plead guilty and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment by the Court for the offense of murder as a crime against humanity.
Ludji & Gusmao: Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Beny Ludji and Jose Gusmao
Juglamento, 19 May 2004, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor
Lao: The Prosecutor v. Mateus Lao a.k.a. Ena Poto
Judgement, 3 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until Timorese independence in 2005, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups perpetrated attacks designed to terrorise the civilian population of East Timor who supported Timorese independence.
In the context of these attacks, the Accused, Mateus Lao, was a member of the Sakunar militia group. In 1999, he and other members of the militia encountered a family of two adults (including a pregnant mother) and four children attempting to cross from East Timor into West Timor. The father was singled out by the militia, taken away from his family and hacked with a machete by Lao. He died as a result of his injuries. The Court sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment for murder as a crime against humanity.
Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan, Minister Yohei Kono, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Opinion of the Court, 28 Jun 2005, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.
The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan. Having been unsuccessful before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. By its decision of 28 June 2005, the Court of Appeals once again dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine as they would require the Courts to interpret treaties concluded between foreign States.
<< first
< prev
page 132 of
139
next >
last >>