Search results

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. This period was characterised by a number of abuses perpetrated against independence supporters by members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and local militia groups.

The Accused, Joao Fernandez, was a member of the pro-autonomy Dadarus Merah militia. In September 1999, he (and others) were armed with samurai swords and received orders from the militia leader that they were to go to the district police station and kill all the males. In carrying out this order, the Accused murdered a known independence supporter by stabbing him twice in the back with his sword. This was done in full view of the victim’s daughters. Fernandez pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment by the Special Panels. Interestingly, although a number of murders were committed that day in the militia attack, the Prosecutor claims that he did not charge the Accused with murder as a crime against humanity (a more serious offense) due to the lack of evidence.

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. Pro-autonomy militia groups, as well as the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) perpetrated a number of abuses against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those individuals who were suspected of being pro-independence supporters. In September 1999, following a referendum in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, members of the Team Alfa pro-autonomy militia were ordered to locate and kill independence supporters.

The Accused, Jose Valente, travelled with a number of militia members to an elementary school where they were to find and kill two suspected pro-independence supporters. These individuals were found and chased: one victim was shot in the leg by a militia member, and then shot again in the forehead by the Accused. The Accused was convicted of the domestic crime of murder and sentenced to 12 years 6 months’ imprisonment by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. The Court found that the Accused acted with premeditation: he may not have had the intention to kill the victim as an individual, but he participated in the plan of the militia group to kill pro-independence supporters. 

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim, most importantly because it considered that selling products to a foreign government does not make the seller liable for subsequent human rights violations. Also, the Court stated that it could not prohibit Caterpillar to sell bulldozers to Israel, as this would infringe upon the government’s executive branch’s exclusive right to decide on trade restraints regarding Israel.   

In 2003, bulldozers manufactured by the American company Caterpillar were used by the Israeli IDF to destroy several houses on the Gaza Strip, killing several Palestinians and an American peace activist in the process. The relatives of the victims and those who lost their homes filed a suit against Caterpillar, arguing that by providing the Israeli military with bulldozers, they were liable for, among other things, war crimes and extrajudicial killing.

The District Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s verdict. In its ruling, it devoted most attention to the ‘political question doctrine’ which disallows Courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases which should remain within the realm of other governmental branches. Since the bulldozers had been paid for by the US, the Court reasoned, a ruling on the merits would also be a judicial opinion about important aspects of US foreign policy. Foreign policy should be decided on by the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary, the Court reasoned.    

After the fall of the Cambodian government in 1975, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Pol Pot, came to power and renamed the State the Democratic Kampuchea. An armed conflict broke out with Vietnam, which lasted until 1979. From 1975 until 1979, Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea sought to establish a revolutionary State and introduced a policy of ‘smashing’ their enemies, a form of physical and psychological destruction that consisted of arbitrary detention, torture and execution. This policy lead to the deaths of an estimated two million people.

The Accused, Ieng Thirith, was the highest-ranking female in the regime, Pol Pot’s sister-in-law and the wife of Ieng Sary, the regime’s former Foreign Minister. Ieng Thirith was indicted in 2010 on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for her role in the events. In September 2012, on the basis of repeated examinations by multiple medical experts, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia found the now 80-year-old Ieng Thirith unfit to stand trial due to her dementia and released her subject to certain conditions. Although the charges have not been withdrawn, a trial is unlikely to happen in the future considering her age and mental state.