skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: amnesty international canada bccla canada chief defence staff

> Refine results with advanced case search

608 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 87 of 122   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. 


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.


Sedyono et al.: The Prosecutor v. Herman Sedyono, Liliek Koeshadianto, Gatot Subyakto, Achmad Syamsudin and Sugito

Judgement, 15 Aug 2002, The Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal at the Human Rights Court of Justice of Central Jakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia

After the referendum on the independence of East Timor from Indonesia, violence erupted between pro-independence and pro-integration groups. On September 6, 1999 the Ave Maria church in Suai, in the Kovalima regency, in which civilians were taking refuge, was attacked by pro-integration militias Laksaur and Mahidi. The militias entered the church with homemade firearms and sharp weapons, killing 27 people.

At the time of the attack on the church in Suai, Herman Sedyono, an Indonesian Army Officer, was the regent or Chief of Kovalima regency and as such the head of government and the head of the regional authorities.

Before the attack a meeting took place at the official residence of Herman Sedyono. Herman Sedyono and the four other accused, Lilik Kushardianto,  Ahmad Syamsuddin, Sugito (Indonesian military officials) and Gatot Subyakto (a police officer) were all present at the incident at the Suai Church.

The Court found that grave human rights violations, in the form of murder as a crime against humanity, had taken place at the Suai Church. The crimes against humanity were committed by militia groups Laksaur and Mahidi. The Court found insufficient proof that the accused were responsible for the attacks on the basis of command responsibility. With regard to Herman Sedyono and Gatot Subyakto, the Court found that they were not military commanders or persons that effectively act as military commanders, as Sedyono was in function of head of the government and Subyakto was a police officer. The Court concluded that there was no organisational relation between the militias and the accused and that the accused had no effective control over the militias, so that the accused could not be held responsible for their actions. 


Kuswani: The Ad Hoc Prosecutor v. Asep Kuswani

Judgment, 28 Nov 2002, The Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal for East Timor, Indonesia

The Ad Hoc Tribunal acquitted the three defendants of the charges entered against them and found that the prosecution had not been able to establish a link between the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and Polri (Resort Police of the Police of Republic of Indonesia), on the one hand, and the BMP, on the other. The former were official governmental bodies, whereas the latter were militia. The judgment was publicly criticized as it was argued that the TNI and the riot police were indeed involved in the violence, including the killing of the 22 civilians.


G.

Order of the Second Senate of 24 June 2003, 24 Jun 2003, Bundesverfassungsgericht / Federal Constitution Court, Germany

The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.

On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.

The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.


<< first < prev   page 87 of 122   next > last >>