460 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 59 of
92
next >
last >>
Tilman (Mateus): The Prosecutor v. Mateus Tilman
Judgement, 24 Aug 2001, 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 crimes were perpetrated against independence supporters by members of the Indonesian Armed forces and pro-autonomy militia groups.
The Accused, Mateus Tilman, was a member of the Ablai militia group. In September 1999, acting on the orders of the militia leader and joined by other individuals, the Accused proceeded to the home of a suspected independence supporter and that of his daughters. The homes were set alight using a petrol can, supplied by the Accused. As the residents started to flee, the unfortunate ones were attacked by the group with machetes and arrows, including a 12-year-old boy. Others escaped with burns.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of attempted murder and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment. His defence of duress was not accepted as the Panel found that he could have refused to join the militia or escaped thereafter.
Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan: Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan
Memorandum Opinion, 4 Oct 2001, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.
The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA.
Da Costa: The Prosecutor v. Agustinho da Costa
Judgement, 11 Oct 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During that time, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and pro-autonomy militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those believed to be independence supporters. These crimes intensified in the wake of the referendum conducted in August 1999 in which the Timorese people voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
It was in the wake of this referendum that members of the Team Pancasila Atsabe militia, including the Accused Agustinho Da Costa, were ordered to locate and kill a known independence supporter who was working for the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). Their initial search being unsuccessful, they located the victim on the following day and proceeded to beat him with rocks and fire multiple shots until he died. His daughter witnesses the entire incident.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Da Costa for his role in the murder and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The Panel was not persuaded by Da Costa’s line of defence that held that he was acting under duress, as he could have resisted joining the militia and could have escaped up until the moment of the attack.
Simić: The Prosecutor v. Milan Simić
Sentencing Judgment , 17 Oct 2002, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
The events giving rise to the case have occurred in the municipality of Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. After the Serb forces took over control, non-Serb civilians were detained at several prison camps throughout the municipality. One such facility was the primary school in Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Milan Simić together with other Serb men severely beat and mistreated several detainees held at the primary school during the summer of 1992. In May 2002, Simić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of torture. Trial Chamber II entered a finding of guilt, and was left with the issue of determining the appropriate sentence for Simić.
With respect to the aggravating factors, Trial Chamber II accorded relevance to the gravity of the offence, Simić’s position of authority, the vulnerability and inferior status of the victims, and Simić’s discriminatory intent.
Trial Chamber II also took into consideration mitigating circumstances, including: Simić’s guilty plea, his remorse, his voluntary surrender, his lack of prior criminal conduct, his comportment at the Detention Unit and general co-operation with the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution.
After balancing these factors, Trial Chamber II sentenced Simić to 5 years of imprisonment.
Marab et al.: Marab et al. v IDF Commander in the West Bank et al.
Judgment, 5 Feb 2003, Supreme Court of Israel, Israel
As part of an operation to prevent attacks on Israeli citizens, the IDF Military Commander in the West Bank issued several Orders to allow the IDF to detain groups of people for periods up to 18 days without the possibility to appeal to a judge or to consult legal counsel.
The Supreme Court held that the military commander is allowed to detain persons if they are considered to be dangerous to the security, but that this authority should be balanced against the liberty of the individual. The Military Commander’s orders allowed for detainees to be held for a minimum of 12 days without judicial reviews and this was considered by the Court to be illegal. Also, the Court stated that investigations should start in an earlier phase of detention. However, the Court also stated that the IDF could prohibit a detainee for meeting with his lawyer because of security considerations. All in all, the Court struck down the disputed orders.
<< first
< prev
page 59 of
92
next >
last >>