Search results

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Habré as well as members of the DDS, and its specialised branch the Special Rapid Action Brigade (Brigade Spéciale d'Intervention Rapide (BSIR)) were named in complaints filed by victims of the regime before the Court of First Instance in N’Djaména.

The Court of First Instance held that it was incompetent to hear the case as an Ordinance of 27 February 1993 provided that a special criminal curt of justice shall have jurisdiction. The victims appealed to the Constitutional Court for a finding that the Ordinance was unconstitutional as it purported to create a second judicial order in violation of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court accepted the arguments of the victims considering that the ordinance in question was indeed unconstitutional and should be repealed. This decision was the last in proceedings against Habré in his native Chad until 2008 when he would be tried and convicted in absentia. 

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. Members of the Indonesian Armed Forces worked together with local pro-autonomy militia groups to perpetrate a campaign of violence against the civilian population, particularly against those perceived to be independence supporters.

The ten accused in the present case were all members of or otherwise affiliated with the pro-autonomy Team Alpha militia group. In 1999, they directed a number of attacks against the civilian population including the torture of one individual, the shooting of a car full of civilians including nuns and journalists, as well as the burning down of civilian homes and the transfer of the population to refugee bases or to West Timor.

The Special Panels convicted all of the Accused for various crimes against humanity and handed down sentences that ranged from 33 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to 4 years’ imprisonment, depending on the degree of the Accused’s involvement in the crimes. It was the first case before the Special Panels to involve crimes against humanity.

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. The occupation was characterised by violence against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly against those perceived or known to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Domingos Mendonca, was a member of a pro-autonomy militia group known as Tim Sasurat Ablai. Through his involvement with the militia, he participated in attacks on the villages of Orluli and Surirema. At the former, he participated in the beating of two individuals with other militia members; both victims died. In the latter, he participated in a number of acts against the villagers including forcing them to drink a mixture of animal and human blood, destroying their homes and leaving almost 300 individuals homeless, forcing them to cook under threat of death and interrogating them as to their political allegiances.

The Special Panel for Serious Crimes convicted Mendonca of one count of murder and one count of persecution as crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

In 2002, two human rights organisations filed a petition against Israel’s policy to eliminate alleged terrorists by targeted killings. Four years later, the Supreme Court provided a judgment. It acknowledged that Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with terrorist organisations and that therefore, the laws of war should apply. Terrorists, the Court reasoned, are neither combatants nor civilians in the legal sense. The Supreme Court therefore qualified the alleged terrorists as ‘non-legal combatants’. This does not mean, however, that killing these non-legal combatants is always legal. Nor is this always illegal. The Court establishes a framework with four conditions which have to be applied on a case-to-case basis to determine the (il)legality of a targeted killing. The Court reasoned that a targeted killing is only legal if the decision to kill is 1) based on reliable evidence, 2) if there are no other choices to alleviate the danger to Israel’s national security, 3) if the attack is followed by a thorough investigation and 4) if harm to innocent bystanders is limited to the absolute minimum.