Search results

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. 

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.

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and local militia groups perpetrated a number of attacks against the civilian population, particularly against those suspected of being independence supporters. In 1999, the crimes increased particularly in the wake of the referendum in which the majority of the Timorese people voted in favour of independence.

It was within this general climate of fear that the Accused, Francisco Soaeres, a member of the TNI, raped a woman on a beach. He had previously taken her away from the army base where she was being detained on the pretext of moving her to another town, but had instead taken her to the beach. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes convicted Soaeres of rape and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment. The case was the first conviction for rape by the Special Panels. 

Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor from 1975 until 2002. During this period, the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) and numerous militia groups perpetrated a number of abuses against the civilian population of East Timor, particularly those believed to be independence supporters.

The Accused, Gaspard Leki, was a TNI member. In September 1999, Leki was under orders to attack a Timorese village, to burn down the houses and to shoot the civilians. In the course of carrying out these orders, he and five militia members under his command came across a group of persons hiding out in a nearby cave. These persons were forced by Leki to abandon the cave and follow him to another village. During this movement, Leki fired a shot at a target some 200 metres away, believing it to be a pig. In fact, the target was a human being who died as a result of the shot. The Special Panels for Serious Crimes considered that the mistake made by Leki as to the identity of the target he was shooting at acquits him of murder as he did not possess the necessary intention to kill another individual, as required by the applicable law. However, he was convicted for negligence as the Panel considered that Leki should have exercised greater caution in shooting. He was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. 

The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.

In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 30 September 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on procedural grounds, namely that it required further submissions with regards to the exercise of jurisdiction over the claim considering its implication of the United States, a party that ordinarily cannot be sued unless there has been an implicit or explicit waiver of immunity.