354 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 65 of
71
next >
last >>
Guterres: The Prosecutor v. Aparicio Guterres a.k.a. Mau Buti
Judgement, 28 Feb 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975. Members of its armed forces (TNI) along with approximately 20 militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign to terrorise the civilian population, in particular alleged supporters of Timorese independence.
The Accused was a member of the DMP (Dadurus Merah Putih) militia which, in September 1999, was ordered to accompany a Sergeant in the TNI to kill persons who had escaped from a previous massacre. However, the Prosecution was unable to find any witnesses who could attest to the murder of any individuals or the Accused’s involvement. The only eyewitness changed his story multiple times. Consequently, the Special Panel acquitted the Accused of the crime against humanity of murder.
Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical Co.
Memorandum, Order and Judgment, 28 Mar 2005, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, United States
During the Vietnam war, the United States used herbicides (including ‘Agent Orange’) in an effort to deprive the enemy of places to hide in forests and agricultural lands. In the decades after the war, reports on detrimental health effects of Agent Orange started coming out.
In this case, a Vietnamese organisation and several Vietnamese individuals did not sue the United States directly, but claimed that several chemical corporations by manufacturing the herbicides had violated national and international law. The Court rejected their claims based on national law, as under US law product liability against government contractors is barred.
Although the Court held that corporations can be held liable under international law, it also rejected the international law based claims as it did not find any international legal obligation which prohibited the US from using herbicides during the Vietnam war. The Court especially emphasised that the herbicides were not used with the specific intent to harm persons, but to ‘kill plants’. The Court held that since the use of herbicides during the Vietnam war had not been illegal, the manufacturers were not liable. The case was dismissed.
Pedro: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Francisco Pedro
Judgement, 14 Apr 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor form 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian Armed Forces and a number of militia groups perpetrated a countrywide campaign of abuse against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons suspected of being independence supporters.
The Accused, Francisco Pedro, was a member of the Firmi Merah Putih (FIRMI) militia group. On 15 September 1999, he and other militia members abducted three suspected independence supporters from their homes, bundled them into a taxi and drove them to a dark clearing where they were to be killed. The Accused stabbed two of the victims, who died, whilst a third succeeded in escaping. The Accused on another event also acted as a guard at a FIRMI commander’s home where a number of independence supporters were detained and repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten. For his involvement, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder and other inhumane acts and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment.
Perreira: The Prosecutor v. Francisco Perreira
Judgement, 27 Apr 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor from 1975 until 2002, the Indonesian armed forces and numerous militia groups in support of Indonesian autonomy perpetrated widespread abuses against the Timorese civilian population, targeting especially those suspected of being pro-independence supporters.
The Accused, Francisco Perreira, was a member of the Mahidi militia group who operated a detention camp where pro-independence supporters were routinely detained, beaten, and subject to harsh living conditions including lack of food, water and sleep. Perreira was convicted by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes for the persecution of four detainees at the camp, whom he had tortured or inflicted severe physical suffering upon. He was further convicted of the attempted murder of another detainee who had succeeded in escaping. Perreira had pursued the victim with other militia members to a riverbank where, acting upon orders to kill, he stabbed the victim. However, his conduct was not the cause of death as the victim was also shot by another militia member. As a result, at sentencing, Perreira was only sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for both counts of crimes against humanity.
Barros & Mendonca: Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Sisto Barros and Cesar Mendonca
Final Judgment, 12 May 2005, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia’s invasion of Timor-Leste in 1975 marked the beginning of almost 25 years of immense atrocities and human rights abuses, resulting in the deaths of nearly one-third of the population of Timor-Leste from starvation, disease, and the use of napalm. Indonesia eventually withdrew in 1999 following international pressure; Timor-Leste achieved full independence in 2002. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes was established to prosecute persons responsible for the serious crimes committed in 1999, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual offenses and torture.
The Accused, Barros and Mendonca, were members of the Laksaur militia, an armed group aimed at suppressing Timorese supporters of independence. The Panel convicted the Accused for two counts of murder, attempted murder and persecution carried out as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the population of East Timor, who had voted in favour of Timorese independence from Indonesia. Although neither of the Accused had carried out the acts themselves, they were liable as members of a joint criminal enterprise whose purpose was to suppress pro-independence supporters.
<< first
< prev
page 65 of
71
next >
last >>