Search results

In response to Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-independence groups emerged which sought to challenge Indonesian rule over the Timorese.

The Accused, Julio Fernandez, was a member of one such group, the Forcas Armadas de Libertacao Nacional de Timor Leste (FALINTIL). In September 1999, when he was returning to his village from his hideout in the mountains where he sought refuge from the pro-autonomy militias, he came across the villagers surrounding and shouting at a man tied to a chair, who was already injured. Fernandez proceeded to question the man and ascertained that he was a militia member. Fernandez then stabbed the man twice, as a result of which he died. The Special Panels convicted Fernandez of murder and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. Fernandez was the only FALINTIL member to have been convicted by the Special Panels. 

During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of crimes were perpetrated by the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups. These crimes were largely directed against the Timorese civilian population, in particular, against those individuals suspected of being independence supporters.

The Accused in the present case, Joseph Leki, was a member of the pro-autonomy Laksaur militia group. As part of his involvement with the militia, he took part in two attacks in September 1999 in which groups of Timorese individuals were surrounded and fired upon by the militia whilst they were resting. As a result of these attacks, four individuals were killed. 

The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Leki for all four murders. Although in three of the four, he had not actually fired the shot, the Panels held him responsible for having contributed logistically and morally to the commission of the crimes by other members of the militia group. In the fourth instance, although Leki had fired the shot, the Panels excluded his responsibility as a principal perpetrator because he had been threatened with death if he did not follow the order to shoot. However, he remained liable on the same grounds as for the other three murders. The Special Panels sentenced Leki to 13 years’ imprisonment. The case is the first one in which the defence of duress was upheld although Leki was convicted anyway.

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 August 1999, Augusto Asameta Tavares was a member of the pro-autonomy Halilintar militia group who was ordered to burn down the houses in a village and murder the inhabitants. In particular, he was ordered, along with others, to locate and stab a known pro-independence supporter, Paulino Lopes Amarel. The order was carried out and the victim died. Tavares was convicted for the domestic crime of murder by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. The Panels did not accept the defence of duress, which required that the conduct was the result of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Although Tavares was forced to join the militia and was bound to follow orders, the Panels concluded that he could have left. Indeed, that he went along with the militia to the village and came armed with a knife demonstrated to the Panel that he shared the aim of furthering the militia’s criminal activity and contributed to the realisation of those aims.

Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.

The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of complicity in crimes against humanity, sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay a sum in excess of 700 000 Euros in damages to the victims admitted as civil parties to the criminal proceedings. Papon brought his case before the Conseil d’Etat­ – France’s highest administrative court – on the grounds that French law provides that, where the State is also at fault in the events that lead to the civil servant’s conviction, then the State shall pay a portion of the damages to which the civil servant was sentenced.

In the present case, the Conseil d’Etat found that a personal fault attached to Papon himself for actively assisting in the arrest, internment and eventual deportation of Jewish individuals in Gironde from 1942 until 1944 but that the French administration was also at fault, independent of Papon’s actions, by adopting measures that would facilitate the deportation. Consequently, the Conseil d’Etat ordered the State to pay half of the damages.

Who can be held responsible in a Court of law for human rights violations? In this case, victims and relatives of victims of the South African apartheid regime sued several corporations for their involvement in South Africa in the period between 1948 and 1994. They were liable, the plaintiffs reasoned, because the police shot demonstrators “from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines”, “the regime tracked the whereabouts of African individuals on IBM computers”, “the military kept its machines in working order with oil supplied by Shell”, and so forth. Whereas the District Court in first instance had granted the corporations’ motion to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed. The District Court had ruled that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for jurisdiction. The majority of the panel disagreed, though for different reasons: one judge relied on international law to substantiate this, another solely relied on national law. A third judge dissented, arguing that this case should not be allowed to proceed, among other things because of fierce opposition from both South Africa and the US.