Search results

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. Members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) worked together with local police forces and pro-autonomy militia groups to perpetrate a campaign of violence against suspected independence supporters.

The Accused, Florencio Tacaqui, was an advisor and member of the Sakunar militia group, which operated in Passabe. In 1999, both prior to and after s referendum in August in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, it carried out a number of attacks. In particular, the Tacaqui was involved in the abduction, detention and beating of approximately 40 independence supporters at the home of a Sakunar chief. He was also involved in the attack on a village in which numerous individuals died, homes were burnt down and livestock stolen. He was convicted for 4 counts of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panel was unable to convict him for the Passabe massacre in which 47 individuals were marched from their homes to a remote area and executed. Witness testimony was contradictory and the evidence inconclusive to support his presence at the scene. The remaining 10 individuals with whom Tacaqui was indicted remain at large. 

During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor form 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and a number of militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign of abuse against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused, Francisco Pedro, was a member of the Firmi Merah Putih (FIRMI) militia group. On 15 September 1999, he and other militia members abducted three suspected independence supporters from their homes, bundled them into a taxi and drove them to a dark clearing where they were to be killed. The Accused stabbed two of the victims, who died, whilst a third succeeded in escaping. The Accused on another event also acted as a guard at a FIRMI commander’s home where a number of independence supporters were detained and repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten. For his involvement, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder and other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. 

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was Osama bin Laden’s driver. Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by members of the United States Armed Forces, he was transferred to the United States detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. By an order of the President of the United States, Hamdan was designated to stand trial before a United States Military Commission for charges of conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including attacking civilians and civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism. Hamdan’s counsel applied for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the military commissions were unlawful and trial before them would violate Hamdan’s rights of access to a court.

The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeal found that the Geneva Convention was not judicially enforceable so Hamdan cannot rely on it before the federal courts. The Court continued that, even if it were, Hamdan was not entitled to its protection because the Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda members. Hamdan’s trial could proceed before a military commission. 

Al Bihani, Yemeni citizen and Saudi Arabian national, travelled to Afghanistan in May 2001 on jihad (holy war). He became a member of the 55^th Arab Brigade and, by his own admission, acted as a cook. The Brigade carried out a number of operations in support of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in the Northern Alliance. Al Bihani was transferred to the custody of the United States Armed Forces and thereafter to Guantanamo Bay following the surrender of his unit. Alleging the illegality of his detention at Guantanamo, al Bihani petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied on the grounds that he was an “enemy combatant” within the meaning of the definition of such decided by the Court in its earlier case of Boumedienne v. Bush. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Al Bihani’s appeal.

Al Bihani appealed the decision arguing that he was entitled to a rehearing. A seven-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the rehearing and upheld the decision that international law does not limit the President’s powers of detention and consequently al Bihani’s detention is lawful. However, all seven Circuit judges appended opinions demonstrating the importance of the question at hand and their separate reasoning.