Search results

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the Accused of both charges, as it found none of his subordinates to have committed serious human rights abuses. In addition, the Tribunal found that the Accused has not disregarded important information and has acted in the best of his power to stop the human rights violations.

East Timor’s foreign minister described the judgment as ‘scandalous’, whereas activists in Indonesia considered the judgments of the Ad Hoc Tribunal to be “mock trials...[as] a result of pressure from the military.” Florendo de Jesus, one of the witnesses, testified that he had recognized several people among the attackers as TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) members, one of them being his own uncle. The public outrage, mostly taking place in East Timor, came as a consequence of a belief that the Ad Hoc Tribunal is failing to try the Indonesian commanders involved in the violence, as well as from the previous acquittals, specifically those of army Lieutenant Colonel Asep Kuswani, police Lieutenant Colonel Adios Salova and mayor Leonita Martins.

Following the decision of the Indonesian government taken in early 1999 to offer East Timor the opportunity to vote for independence or for autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia, violence erupted in East Timor. The defendants in this case took part in a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians that were in favour of an independent East Timor. One of the accused, Herman Sedyono, was the Bupati (District Administrator) of the Covalima District, one of the 13 districts in East Timor. As such, he was bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the region. Most of the other accused were Commander or just member of the Indonesian security authorities (TNI) or the Indonesian police force (POLRI), which were both promoting autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia.

In 1999, the Mahidi and the Laksaur pro-Indonesian militia groups, with the help of the TNI and POLRI, and with support from the Covalima District administration, repeatedly committed attacks against the Covalima population (mainly against those that were in favour of independence). The attacks involved crimes such as unlawful arrests, destruction of property, detention, and murder. The 16 accused were charged with encouraging, assisting and failing to stop, arrest or prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes.

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico.

Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals (including Jose Francisco Sosa) involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The Court of Appeal confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. In the current en banc hearing and opinion the Court of Appeal affirmed its earlier conclusion concerning Sosa, and also established liability of the United States: Machain's arrest, planned by the DEA in the United States, was found unlawful.

Madelaine Bukumba, a woman originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was previously employed by the Comité de Securité de l'État (CSE). Her job was to listen incognito to the conversations of individuals in public places and to report on their opinions to the CSE as well as on media coverage of the government. 

After being shown on television speaking against the government’s use of child soldiers, Bukumba was put in prison for 15 days. Following her release, she attempted to quit her job but was threatened to be killed if she would quit. Thereafter, Bukumba fled to Kenya and eventually to Canada together with her minor daughter.

Bukumba claimed protection under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in order not to be returned to the DRC. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada held that she did not qualify for protection because she had been an accomplice to serious crimes committed by the government because she was a former governmental employee. In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Board held that there was no risk to her or her daughter’s life if returned to the DRC.