skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: bil'in green park international & green mount international

> Refine results with advanced case search

551 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 99 of 111   next > last >>

Ena & Ena: The Public Prosecutor v. Umbertus Ena and Carlos Ena

Judgement, 23 Mar 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

The Accused were brothers, Umbertos and Carlos Ena. Both were members of the Sakunar militia group, a pro-autonomy group that operated in East Timor in 1999 in conjunction with other militia groups and the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI). They participated in a countrywide campaign of violence against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those persons believed to be independence supporters. In September 1999, following the results of a referendum in which the people of East Timor had voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, the Accused and other members of the militia group targeted the village of Nakome with machetes, spears and stones.

The Special Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlos Ena was present or participated in the attack; he was accordingly acquitted. However, Umbertos Ena was convicted for his role in the deaths of two victims and for seriously injuring a third by stoning and stabbing. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. 


Beno: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes v. Lino Beno

Judgement, 16 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesians who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (a member of the Sakunar militia) intentionally stabbed one victim and severely beat another victim who was tied to a tree in plain view of other villagers. The Accused pleaded guilty to both charges and the Court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. His defence, that he was coerced into committing the crimes due to a fear of his superiors, failed to convince the Court, as he was not in imminent danger of death.


Metan: The Deputy Prosecutor-General for Serious Crimes Against Domingos Metan

Judgement, 16 Nov 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in a climate of tension between the Indonesians who favoured continued occupation and the Timorese who favoured independence. Following the referendum of 1999 in which an overwhelming majority of Timorese voted in favour of independence, hostilities escalated between the Indonesian Armed Forces and associated militias, and the independence supporters.

In the context of these hostilities, the Accused (a member of the Sakunar militia) intentionally stabbed a suspected independence supporter and watched as two other militia members proceeded to stab and stone the victim who died as a result of his wounds. The Accused pleaded guilty to the crime of murder as a crime against humanity, and the Court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. 


Sufa et al.: The Prosecutor v. Anton Lelan Sufa et al.

Combined Judgments, 16 Nov 2004, District Court of Dili, Special Panel for Serious Crimes, East Timor

Anton Lelan Sufa, Agostinho Cloe, Agostino Cab, Lazarus Fuli, Lino Beno, Anton Lelan Simao and Domingos Metan were members of the ‘Sakunar’ militia, which was organised and controlled by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia (AFRI), operating within East Timor in 1999 to terrorize civilians who supported East Timor’s independence from Indonesia. The leader of the “Sakunar” militia for Bebo village was Anton Lelan Sufa. On 16 September 1999, in the village of Netensuan, Anton Lelan Sufa ordered the co-accused to attack Anton Beto, Leonardo Anin and Francisco Beto, civilians who supported independence. Anton Beto and Leonardo Anin were both killed by militia members, and Francisco Beto was tied up and severely beaten for about half an hour. These acts were part of a country-wide campaign of violence to intimidate and punish independence supporters.

All men were indicted with murder and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. Lelan Sufa was charged with multiple forms of liability for these acts, namely both individual responsibility and superior responsibility, because he had ordered the acts. The Court held that Anton Lelan Sufa bears both individual as superior responsibility with regard to the crime of murder as crime against humanity. With regard to the inhumane acts as crime against humanity, he bears superior responsibility by failing to prevent the crime and to punish his subordinates while he had effective control over the militia members, individual responsibility by ordering the crime and individual responsibility by committing the crime.

All accused entered guilty pleas and were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 to 7 years. 


John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

Memorandum, 14 Oct 2005, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed. The Court allowed the case to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had attempted to bring the suit under federal statutes which allow aliens to sue for violations of human rights. The Court dismissed these claims for several reasons, including that these claims could not be assessed without passing judgment on another country, Indonesia, which the Court refused to do. Also, claims were dismissed because they had not been pled adequately.

Claims based on state laws were allowed to proceed, although claims against a corporation in which Indonesia owned a majority interests were dismissed because ruling on this company would mean passing judgment on Indonesia. The Court also cautioned the parties to be careful not to intrude into Indonesian sovereignty during further proceedings.  


<< first < prev   page 99 of 111   next > last >>