354 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 55 of
71
next >
last >>
Marques et al.: The General Prosecutor v. Joni Marques, Manuel de Costa, Joao da Costa, Paolo da Costa, Amelio da Costa, Hilario da Silva, Gonsalo Dos Santos, Alarico Fernandes, Mautersa Monis and Gilberto Fernandes
Judgement, 11 Dec 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
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.
Sarmento (Benjamin) & Tilman (Romeiro): The Prosecutor v. Benjamin Sarmento & Romeiro Tilman
Judgement, 16 Jul 2003, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, a number of pro-autonomy militia groups carried out attacks on the Timorese population, particularly targeting those suspected of being independence supporters.
The Accused, Benjamin Sarmento and Romeiro Tilman, were deputy commanders in the Tim Sasurat Ablai militia group, which operated in Same Sub-District of East Timor. They gave orders for the murder of all independence supporters in a number of villagers and participated directly in some of those murders, for example by stabbing victims with a spear or beating them with sticks. They also ordered the deportation of approximately 15 000 East Timorese villagers into West Timor, threatening them with death if they resisted. Their orders were carried out by the militia members under their authority. Although the Prosecutor initially charged both Accused with a greater number of offenses including unlawful imprisonment, the remaining charges were withdrawn after the Accused pleaded guilty: Sarmento to four counts of murder and one count of deportation as crimes against humanity, Tilman to one count of murder and one count of deportation. The Special Panels sentenced Sarmento to 12 years’ imprisonment and Tilman to 8 years’ imprisonment.
Kovačević: War Crimes Prosecutor v. Vladimir Kovačević aka "Rambo"
Indictment, 26 Jul 2007, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro
Vladimir Kovačević was a Commander of the Yugoslav Peoples’ Army (JNA) during the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995). On 6 December 1991, Kovačević allegedly ordered his troops to bombard the city of Dubrovnik. As a result, two people were killed, three others were seriously wounded, six buildings were destroyed, and 46 buildings were substantially damaged.
In February 2001, Kovačević was officially charged with violation of the laws of war (attack against civilians and civilian objects). Even though Kovačević was initially to be tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), he was declared mentally sick and not fit to stand trial.
In November 2006, the ICTY referred the case to the authorities of the Republic of Serbia.
On 26 July 2007, the Serbian Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor issued an indictment against Kovačević, charging him with war crimes against civilians.
Samardžija: The Prosecutor v. Marko Samardžija
Verdict, 15 Oct 2008, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber (Section I), Appellate Panel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Marko Samardžija was the commander of the 3rd Company of the Sanica Battalion within the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. He has been accused of ordering soldiers under his command, on 10 July 1992, that the Bosniak (Muslim) population from the settlements of Brkići and Balagića Brdo (in the Ključ Municipality) leave their houses, after which the men older than 18 and younger than 60 were brought to the primary school in Biljani. From there, the men were murdered in groups of 5 to 10, which led to the deaths of at least 144 Bosniak men.
On Appeal, the Court found the Accused guilty of Crimes against Humanity for the deprivation of liberty of these men, since they were forcefully moved from their homes and taken to the primary school. The Court did not find him guilty of aiding in the murders, since this was not a clear and obvious consequence of his acts.
Therefore on 15 October 2008, the Appellate Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Marko Samardžija guilty of crimes against humanity (depriving of liberty) and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment.
South African Apartheid Litigation: Lungisile Ntsbeza et al v. Daimler AG et al., and Khulumani et al. v. Barclays National Bank et al.
Opinion and Order, 8 Apr 2009, United States District Court Southern District of New York, United States
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. After the Supreme Court remitted the case, the District Court established a framework to determine when corporations can be held liable for human rights violations. Simply doing business with a state which violates the law of nations is not sufficient to establish liability, but if a corporation provides means by which human rights violations can be carried out and if the corporation knows that its action will substantially contribute the perpetrator in committing human rights violations, liability can be established. After applying this framework to several allegations made against several corporations, the Court establishes that part of these claims are plausible, thus allowing these claims to proceed.
<< first
< prev
page 55 of
71
next >
last >>