Search results

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) along with a number of militia groups perpetrated widespread abuses against the civilian population, particularly targeting those known to be or suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

In September 1999, members of the TNI and Dadurus Merah Putih (DMP) militia of which the Accused was a member, surrounded the home of a known independence supporter. In his absence, his relative was dragged outside and beaten with machetes, spears and stones until he died. His brother-in-law, emerging from the neighbouring home, was also targeted – he was shot and stabbed until he too died. The Accused was convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for his participation in the murder of both victims and sentenced to 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted of the charge of torture as the Special Panel found that he did not act with the intent of torturing the victims, but 'solely' with the intent to cause their death.

Dragoje Paunović was born on 19 June 1954 in the town of Mojkovac in northern Montenegro. Paunović was a senior officer of a small military formation attached to the Battalion of Rogatica, a battalion part of the Bosnian Serb Army. In the period May to September 1992, attacks were carried out by military and police forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by Serbian paramilitary formations against the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) living in the municipality of Rogatica. On 15 August 1992,  Paunović used 27 Bosniaks as protection during a clash between the army of the Republika Srpska and the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosniaks were detained in the Rasadnik detention camp in Rogatica, and later driven to the town of Jacen in Rogatica where 24 of them were subsequently killed under the orders of Paunović. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Paunović guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

During the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Zrinko Pinčić was a member of the Croat Defense Council (HVO). Between November 1992 and March 1993, he came to a house in the village of Donje Selo, Konjic Municipality, were Serb civilians were detained. During this time, Pinčić repeatedly took one woman from the room where other civilians were detained, and forced her to sexual intercourse, holding his rifle by the bed and threatening her that he would bring another 15 soldiers to rape her and other detainees, if she refused him.

The Court found Zrinko Pinčić guilty of the criminal offence of War Crimes against Civilians and sentenced him to 9 years imprisonment. The Court first determined that the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina was applicable to the case, and not the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that was in place at the time. Next, the Court determined that Pinčić had committed a war crime against a civilian. This was the case, as the criminal acts of Pinčić were committed in violation of international law as the victim was a civilian and was raped; they were committed in time of armed conflict; the act was connected with the armed conflict as Pinčić was a soldier and lastly because Pinčić committed the offence with premeditated intent and wanted to commit it. In determining the sentence, the Court primarily considered the gravity of the criminal offence and the degree of his criminal liability. The Court considered as extenuating circumstances that Pinčić is father of two children, his fair conduct before the Court, his old age and the fact that he was an 80 per cent disabled veteran.

Under the authoritarian regime of Major General Barre in Somalia, the Somali Armed Forces perpetrated a number of human rights abuses against the Somali civilian population, in particular against members of the Isaaq clan.

The petitioners, all members of the Isaaq clan, allege that in the 1980s and 1990s they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Somali military including acts of rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. They instituted a civil complaint against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the then-Minister of Defence and later Prime Minister of Somalia on the basis of the Torture Victims Protection Act.

After a line of litigation spanning 3 years and culminating in a Supreme Court decision in 2010, proceedings against Samantar were allowed to continue as he did not enjoy immunity.

Samantar accepted responsibility in February 2012; the present decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held Samantar liable as a superior for the crimes perpetrated by his subordinates in the Somali Armed Forces and the affiliated national intelligence services against the plaintiffs who were awarded $21 million in damages. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected.