Suchergebnisse

On 12 November 1991, Indonesian soldiers shot and killed over 200 people in a funerary march and pro-independence protest at the Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili, East Timor. These proceedings comprise some of the papers from an online international symposium marking the thirtieth anniversary of the massacre held on 9 - 10 November 2021. The symposium was held by the Timor-Leste Studies Association and the Centro Nacional Chega (CNC), Timor-Leste's national centre of memory and dedicated to filmmaker Max Stahl, whose footage of the massacre had played such a pivotal role in raising awareness about the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Over two days, almost 30 research papers and first-hand accounts were presented in English, Tetum and Portuguese, looking at topics such as the organisation of the protest, the impact of the massacre, and how these events have been remembered and commemorated in Timor-Leste and elsewhere

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.