Suzannah Linton

Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone: Experiments in International Justice

In Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone, the United Nations has been involved in efforts to create a new species of tribunal for the prosecution of international crimes. These are the “internationalised domestic tribunals”, grafted onto the judicial structure of a nation where massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law have taken place, or created as a treaty based organ, separate from that structure. In a radical move away from the earlier prevailing wisdom that the non-inclusion in any position of nationals of the country most affected would preserve impartiality, objectivity and neutrality, mixed panels of international and local judges have jurisdiction to try crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The cases are brought by prosecuting agencies that are also mixed in composition. This latest of transitional justice options is one that came into being with the 1999 round of United Nations-Cambodia negotiations on a tribunal for Cambodia, with East Timor being the first to implement such a scheme in 2000 (Kosovo’s planned War and Ethnic Crimes Court project has been abandoned, but international judges and prosecutors continue to work within the courts of Kosovo on war and ethnically motivated crimes). In each of Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone, there have been persistent calls for the establishment of ad hoc tribunals along the lines of those created for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The internationalised tribunals are a half-way house, a hybrid containing elements of domestic prosecutions and an international process. For internationalised tribunals to be correctly understood, they must first be recognised as being one of a range of transitional justice options, from those of a judicial nature to non-judicial truth seeking mechanisms, available to nations seeking to address a legacy of violence. A single initiative on its own is unlikely to bring about a peaceful, stable and restored nation. The answer may lie in a combination of options.

New approaches to international justice in Cambodia and East Timor

T hroughout 2001, the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)1 held trials of persons accused of committing atrocities in East Timor in 1999. On 11 December 2001, the first judgement in a crimes against humanity case was delivered — the ten accused militiamen were convicted and sentenced to a total of 206 years.The cases have been conducted at the District Court of Dili, where Special Panels of international and East Timorese judges have jurisdiction to try what are known as “Serious Crimes”, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and certain violations of the applicable domestic legislation, the Indonesian Penal Code. This project, the first of its kind to be implemented, draws from an early model of a Cambodian tribunal for the prosecution of Khmer Rouge atrocities and reportedly also from the abandoned War Crimes and Ethnic Crimes Court project for Kosovo.

Unravelling the First Three Trials at Indonesia's Ad Hoc Court for Human Rights Violations in East Timor

The trials at Indonesias Ad Hoc Court for Human Rights in East Timor have been widely condemned. ‘Sham’ and ‘show trial’ are the terms frequently used to describe the process, yet to date there has been little substantive assessment that adequately explains or documents the process. This article offers a detailed assessment of the first three trials at the court, namely that of a former governor of East Timor (Abilio Soares), a former police chief of East Timor (Timbul Silaen), and five members of the military, police, and civil administration accused of responsibility for the Suai church massacre. In 2000, the international community gave a shamed nation the opportunity to redeem its honour and reputation by bringing to justice those of its nationals responsible for the destruction of East Timor in a process that met international standards. But the inescapable conclusion for the author is that the cases of Abilio Soares, Timbul Silaen, and the Suai church massacre were not conducted in a way that was consistent with an intent to bring to justice persons responsible for gross violations of human rights in East Timor.