Search results

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. 

Unlike the politically motivated crimes that are usually dealt with by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes as a result of Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the present case holds no links to these events. A father who suspected his daughter’s illness to be the result of black magic ordered the Accused, Carlos Soares Carmona, and others, to find the man responsible and bring him to his home. The man is brought back and, by placing saliva on the girl’s forehead, wakes her from a state of unconsciousness. The man is tied to a chair, questioned and beaten by the Accused on the orders of the father. He confesses to practising black magic, particularly against children, but resolves never to do so again. A reconciliation occurs and two bottles of a local alcoholic drink are consumed. After everyone departs the home, the Accused returns to find the man alone and proceeds to stab him in the chest. He dies as a result of his wounds. The Accused is convicted by the Special Panels for murder and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. His defence of intoxication is dismissed absent evidence to the contrary. 

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) together with local militia groups perpetrated a number of crimes against the Timorese population, especially independence supporters.

The Accused, Marcurious José de Deus, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. In 1999, he and other militia members were ordered by their superiors to murder a woman who had openly revolted against the militia after its members had killed her son. De Deus, just 22 years old at the time, carried out the orders by repeatedly stabbing the mother as she grieved over the corpse of her son with a kitchen knife. He was convicted of murder contrary to the Indonesian Penal Code by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes. The offence, which usually carries with it a punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment, was reduced in the case of de Deus to 5 years’ imprisonment. The Special Panels took into consideration his young age, the climate of violence which existed in East Timor at the time, that the Accused was acting on orders and that he pleaded guilty to the offence and expressed genuine remorse.

When Rwandan President Habyariamana was killed on 6 April 1994, it reignited ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations, which had earlier in the same decade culminated in a bloody civil war.

Omar Serushago was the de facto leader of the civilian Interahamwe militia, one of the primary perpetrators of the crimes committed against Tutsis and moderate Hutus in the genocide of 1994. In his official capacity, Serushago led a group of militiamen in raids against Tutsis seeking refuge in parish churches, on commercial property, in bishop’s houses, and even those who were detained in the Gendarmerie station jail. Tutsis would then be summarily executed, some personally at the hands of Serushago. Having pleaded guilty to one count of genocide and three counts of crimes against humanity (assassination, extermination and torture), Serushago was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment by the Trial Chamber. By a decision of 14 February 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Serushago’s arguments that the sentence against him was excessively long. The present decision contains the reasons of the Appeals Chamber for having reached this conclusion.