473 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 92 of
95
next >
last >>
Soares (Marculino): The Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes v. Marculino Soares
Julgamento (Judgement), 1 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During the outbreak of violence before, during and after the referendum on independence of East Timor from Indonesia, Marculino Soares was a Besi Merah Putih (BMP) militia commander from the village of Guico, in the district of Liquiça. The BMP militia was an anti-independence militia. On 17 April 1999, the house of Manuel Carrascalão, a pro-independence leader, was attacked, resulting in the death of 12 persons, and serious injuries to 9 others. On that day, Marculino Saores had ordered his men to go to a rally in Dili, from where the attack was launched. The group led by Marculino Soares joined the attack. Marculino Soares was indicted on 25 July 2003 by the Special Panel for Serious Crimes for participating in the attack, and charged with crimes against humanity, on the basis of individual and command responsibility.
The Court found that it had been proven that Marculino Soares personally participated in the organization and execution of the attack. Marculino Soares was convicted of crimes against humanity (murder, other inhumane acts and persecution) and sentenced to 15 years in prison (13 for the count of murder and 2 years for the count of other inhumane acts).
Lao: The Prosecutor v. Mateus Lao a.k.a. Ena Poto
Judgement, 3 Dec 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor
During Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor from 1975 until Timorese independence in 2005, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces along with a number of militia groups perpetrated attacks designed to terrorise the civilian population of East Timor who supported Timorese independence.
In the context of these attacks, the Accused, Mateus Lao, was a member of the Sakunar militia group. In 1999, he and other members of the militia encountered a family of two adults (including a pregnant mother) and four children attempting to cross from East Timor into West Timor. The father was singled out by the militia, taken away from his family and hacked with a machete by Lao. He died as a result of his injuries. The Court sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment for murder as a crime against humanity.
Soares (Marcelino): The Prosecutor v. Marcelino Soares
Judgement, 17 Feb 2005, Court of Appeal (Tribunal de Recurso), Special Panel for Serious Crimes, Dili District Court, East Timor
Marcelino Soares was a Village Level Commander of the Indonesian Army (TNI) during the violence that followed after East Timor’s 1999 referendum concerning its independence. On 20 April 1999 soldiers under the command of Soares arrested three pro-independence supporters on his orders. The three prisoners, Luis Dias Soares, Rafael de Jesus and Felipe de Sousa were taken to an empty building on the orders of Marcelino Soares were they were detained, interrogated and physically abused by Soares himself and his subordinates. Luis Dias Soares died as a result of the wounds inflicted on him.
Soares was charged with murder, torture and persecution by illegal detention as crimes against humanity. The Court found that Soares was responsible for the murder of Dias Soares on the basis of command responsibility, as the death of Dias Soares resulted from his omission to control the soldiers under his command. For murder (or torture, or persecution) to be considered a crime against humanity, the act must be part of a widespread and systematic attack. The Court considered this was the case, and that Soares knew about this, as he attended TNI meetings.
The Trial Court convicted Soares, on the basis of both individual and command responsibility, for murder of one person and torture and persecution of three persons, as crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to 11 years imprisonment.
The Public Defender appealed against the conviction of the Dili District Court. The Court of Appeal examined whether an error of fact (leading to an error of law) had been committed by the Trial Court, when it acknowledged the systematic character of the attack against the civilian population contextual to the conduct of the accused, the illegality of detention of victims and the command responsibility of the accused.
The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court had not erred in these matters and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
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.
<< first
< prev
page 92 of
95
next >
last >>