662 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 74 of
133
next >
last >>
Laku: The Prosecutor v. Francisco Dos Santos Laku
Judgement, 25 Jul 2001, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. In the course of this occupation, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) collaborated with local militia groups for the purposes of identifying, questioning and attacking alleged or known independence supporters.
In 1999, the Accused, Francisco dos Santos Laku, was a member of the TNI. He travelled in a convoy of cars to a militia checkpoint, with an individual in custody. The individual was then handed over to the militia members who were to question and then to kill him, on Laku’s orders.
The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted the Accused of murder, contrary to the criminal law applicable at the time. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. Interestingly, although the Panel made findings as to the widespread and systematic nature of the crimes perpetrated by the militia, neither the indictment nor the final judgement charged the Accused with murder as a crime against humanity, a more serious offence.
Todorović (Stevan): The Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorović
Sentencing Judgment, 31 Jul 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber III, The Netherlands
On 17 April 1992, the Serb forces gained control over the municipality of Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Following the takeover, they launched a series of attacks aiming to remove the Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Muslim inhabitants from the area. As a result, the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims were murdered, beaten, sexually assaulted, deported and those who were unlawfully confined, were subjected to various mistreatments. During this time, Stevan Todorović acted as the Chief of Police in Bosanski Šamac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
On 19 January 2001, Todorović pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecution, and, subsequently, the Trial Chamber entered a finding of guilt on the same day.
Trial Chamber III balanced the gravity of the crimes, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the appropriate sentence for Todorović. Trial Chamber III considered that the offences perpetrated by Todorović were of serious gravity, and the underlying cruelty of the commission was an aggravating factor. Similarly, Todorović’s position as Chief of Police was further an aggravating factor. Trial Chamber III also took the following mitigating circumstances into consideration: Todorović’s guilty plea, his cooperation with the Prosecution, and his remorse.
Todorović was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
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.
Papon v. France
Decision, 12 Apr 2002, Judicial Assembly, Council of State, France
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.
Silaen: Ad Hoc Prosecutors v. Timbul Silaen
Judgement , 15 Aug 2002, Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal at Central Jakarta District Court, Indonesia
Timbul Silaen worked as police chief in East Timor in 1999. As such, he was responsible for the security during the independence referendum held in the country on 30 August 1999. Before and after the referendum deadly incidents took place between people in favour of East Timor’s secession from the Republic of Indonesia and the pro-Indonesian supporters. Approximately 1000 people died, 80% of the territory was destroyed, and 250,000 people were forcibly evacuated to Indonesia.
Silaen was prosecuted because as a commander he allegedly failed to stop his subordinates from committing crimes and also failed to bring them to court in order to be prosecuted. In 2002, the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor did not found Silaen guilty as a commander because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his subordinates had committed the crimes.
<< first
< prev
page 74 of
133
next >
last >>