Search results

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. The occupation was characterised by violence against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly against those perceived or known to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Domingos Mendonca, was a member of a pro-autonomy militia group known as Tim Sasurat Ablai. Through his involvement with the militia, he participated in attacks on the villages of Orluli and Surirema. At the former, he participated in the beating of two individuals with other militia members; both victims died. In the latter, he participated in a number of acts against the villagers including forcing them to drink a mixture of animal and human blood, destroying their homes and leaving almost 300 individuals homeless, forcing them to cook under threat of death and interrogating them as to their political allegiances.

The Special Panel for Serious Crimes convicted Mendonca of one count of murder and one count of persecution as crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, an US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached. The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgement, as it was confident that a judicial ruling in this case would not interfere with the duties and prerogatives of the executive branch.   

Agathe Habyarimana (maiden name: Agathe Kanziga) is the widow of former Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, whose death on 6 April 1994 marked the beginning of the Rwandan genocide that was to result in the death of some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the lapse of a few months. Agathe Habyarimana is frequently regarded as one of the powers behind Juvénal habyarimana’s Presidencey and as part of the inner circle responsible for the planification and organisation of the Rwandan genocide. On 9 April 1994, she was airlifted to France.

In July 2004, she applied for refugee status but her application was denied by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). By the present decision, the Appeals Commission for Refugees confirmed the rejection and concluded that she had participated in the planning, organising and direction of the genocide in Rwanda since 1990. 

Lexiuste Cajuste, an elementary school teacher who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by Haitian military forces in 1993, and Marie Jeanne Jean, whose husband was killed during the Raboteau Massacre in April 1994, filed a claim against former Haitian Colonel Carl Dorélien. The plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was one of the most powerful members of the military regime that ruled Haiti from October 1991 to September 1994 and that, despite Dorélien’s position and influence, he failed to prevent the abuses committed by the Haitian military. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Dorélien was responsible for the military discipline and justice but failed to punish his subordinates who committed crimes.

The jury trial found Dorélien culpable for torture, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, and crimes against humanity; and the Court of District ordered him to pay $4.3 million in damages to the plaintiffs.

Fofana and Kondewa were high-ranking members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF) who participated in the armed conflict in Sierra Leone on the side of the ousted government of President Kabbah. They were convicted by the Special Court for aiding and abetting the planning of war crimes by CDF forces, particularly murder, cruel treatment, burning of civilian property, collective punishment and, for Kondewa, enlisting child soldiers.

On appeal, the Appeals Chamber found that there was sufficient evidence to convict both men for crimes against humanity. However, the convictions for collective punishment and enlistment of child soldiers were overturned. At sentencing, in order to reflect the gravity of the crimes and the new conviction for crimes against humanity, the Appeals Chamber increased the sentences: Fofana’s from 6 years to 15 years, Kondewa’s from 8 years to 20 years. The Appeals Chamber refused to take into account the political motives of Fofana and Kondewa, and particularly that they were fighting for a just cause in order to restore President Kabbah to power.