31 July 2011
STATEMENT BY FRETILIN PARLIAMENTARY LEADER, ANICETO GUTERRES MP, DURING OPENING OF DEBATE ON PROPOSED NATIONAL STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FRETILIN PARLIAMENTARY GROUP
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE
STATEMENT BY FRETILIN PARLIAMENTARY LEADER, ANICETO GUTERRES MP, DURING OPENING OF DEBATE ON PROPOSED NATIONAL STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(Translation from Tetum)
11 July 2011
Good morning Mr. President.
In 2007 when we all gathered in this noble chamber to hear the government present its five-year governance program, we first heard from this de facto government that the 2001 National Development Plan would be updated. A Plan that had been compiled in 2001-2002 after a lengthy public consultation process that involved a national dialogues process with over 30,000 people. Almost four years after having heard that, we have just received for our consideration a week ago this document entitled the National Strategic Development Plan.
Prior to us members of parliament having received this document a week ago, we had access to an early draft, which was only in English.
It took the de facto government four years, at a cost of three and a half millions US dollars paid to a private consultant from Indonesia, but members of this parliament were only given a final version in Portuguese to analyze and approve one week ago.
Nobody doubts that our people, our nation, need a development plan. It is FRETILIN that reminds this parliament almost on a weekly basis of the need to govern with a plan, programs, and not just ad hoc governance or governances from one’s dreams as has been the case with this de facto government for four years now.
After having paid millions and after four years, with a large team of varied advisors and consultants to help them, the de facto government pushed this document onto this national parliament, where members do not have any advisors or consultants to help analyze this document, for speedy approval, because it has to be taken quickly to the development Partners meeting to be held later this week.
Nor have our people been given the opportunity to fully know what is contained in this document, because the so called public consultation that is said to have taken place last year through the sub-district capitals of the nation, was more like a political campaign, controlled and restricted as to who could attend and who could ask questions or air criticisms to Big Brother on the plan that Big Brother was presenting to them.
When it first began in Lautem and Baucau these sessions were open to all, but when it became evident that there was a great deal of interest by our people to attend and air their views on this plan and the de facto government’s governance, the “public consultations” in remaining districts were open only to people who enlisted prior to the meetings and listed the questions they were going to be asking. This was not a genuine public consultation by any measure of the concept.
This Plan purports to enhance national development until the year 2030. Then why not give the opportunity even for civil society to study it carefully and comment on it? Why not consult with the de facto opposition parties?
FRETILIN wants to remind all members of this house of their constitutional responsibility under article 92 of the Constitution to represent all of Timor-Leste’s citizens. We would like to remind all of you of our role as members of parliament to oversee the government’s governance proposals and execution or proposed execution of the people’s money. We are not here just to be a rubber stamp for any Big Brother who wants us to or to merely vote on individual or personal interests.
FRETILIN believes that a document of such importance should be seeking to open the path for equitable and just development for all our people, especially those of our very poorest people who are getting poorer every month. A document such as this deserves, in fact demands from us the obligation as the representatives of our people, to properly hold a dialogue with our people directly so as to establish their aspirations and views on what is proposed in this document that has been sent to this parliament.
FRETILIN will not sit by and allow this parliament to simply rubber stamp what has been publicly referred by some to as being simply the de facto Prime Minister’s dream.
It is for this reason that the FRETILIN parliamentary group demands that this proposed Strategic Development Plan be remitted to the respective parliamentary committees for their analysis and report back to the plenary with regard to the impact on the individual development sectors.
The FRETILIN parliamentary group is very certain that we must look at this document as the result of a human effort, and not as some have tended to view it, as an unalterable Sacred Biblical text. This document has many weaknesses that have already been identified by FRETILIN and others such as civil society, just on the cursory glance that time and other constraints have permitted. So, it is indispensable that the parliamentary committees sit down and look at the document carefully.
If other members want to proceed to vote on an approval of the resolution, they can do so, and FRETILIN will at a future point in time reveal precisely the mistake they have made in doing so, but FRETILIN will not partake in any such vote to approve this document. It will then be those who have approved it who will have to explain to our people why they have approved this document without properly analyzing it beforehand.
However, we will briefly point out some points that are of concern to us about this proposed Plan that members opposite are so keen to rubber stamp today.
Firstly, the proposed Plan is based on a number of false assumptions. Just one is that the Plan is too heavily based on the development of the petroleum industry. What will happen if no further substantial reserves of petroleum are discovered, reserves in the magnitude of Bayu-Undan or Greater Sunrise? What will happen if Greater Sunrise does not proceed? This indicates a tendency to rely far too much on revenues that are not yet assured.
However, the macro-economic data relied on in the plan are also out of date and have a tendency to mislead the real economic situation in the country, especially with regard to the exact rate of inflation and the precise dependence of our economy on oil and gas revenues.
Secondly. The plan does not place a sufficient emphasis on job creation especially for our burgeoning numbers of unemployed youth. In 2023 we will likely have more than 30,000 school leavers joining the job market annually. This proposed plan has no concrete plan for how these jobs can be created, because the types of infrastructure projects being planned will not generate anywhere near the necessary jobs. We have already seen this from the current types of infrastructure investment programs being implemented such as the heavy fuel electrification project.
What we have seen is mostly foreign workers being imported to do the job. How will we ever reverse this trend if the proposed plan seeks to head in the same direction with the same development formula?
The FRETILIN parliamentary group can also see clearly in this plan that the people in our remote mountain communities, such as Ainaro, Aileu and Manatuto, and others, will not benefit substantively from this proposed plan. It is as if they have been taken out the development equation.
FRETILIN will point out in greater detail why we believe that these remote mountain communities have been denied a part in this development plan, but we will not do that today.
Suffice to say that any national development plan should have our people at its centre, at its core, not to the periphery of the process, away from participating in the decision making process, becoming just pawns in someone else’s plan to be moved around as desired. It is clear that, despite mouthing platitudes on the needs of our people, this proposed plan actually removes our people from the core of the process. It will have, if implemented the effect of marginalizing and alienating them from the development process, especially when we consider the lack of attention given to development of the agricultural sector.
There is ample evidence throughout the world that shows that countries that are rich in oil and gas, should be seeking development plans and programs that will give it a way out of dependency on these resources. However, this proposed plan would make us more dependent on these resources. There is no focused alternative credible economic development plan being proposed in this document. What everyone that is informed is asking is “what will happen when the oil and gas runs out in 20-30 years or less?” What will happen also if oil and gas prices plummet?
Of more serious concern is that this proposed plan only cursorily refers to the de facto government’s plans to borrow money and nationally indebt us in the process of implementing this plan. What sort of plan fails to even address the issue of how the proposed debts are to be paid? This too we will debate in this house in greater detail one day soon.
We have all heard in the media comments as to whose “dreams” this proposed plan represents. Some say it represents the de facto Prime Minister’s “dreams”, whereas others say it represents our peoples’ “dreams”. However, FRETILIN is very certain that it represents the dreams of foreigners, because this plan will open the way for those foreigners with a slight of hand and a quick hand to take away our peoples’ money; given what the de facto Finance Minister herself told this parliament late last year, that from every dollar invested into the economy, seventy cents flows straight out because of our heavy reliance on exports. This is the basic problem with this proposed strategic development plan, for whom is it strategic? FRETILIN has no doubt that it is strategic for everyone except for our people’s and nation’s development.
FRETILIN is extremely conscientious that our country needs a National Development Plan, but one that reflects our peoples’ aspirations as to how development should occur, and one that should be inclusive and sustainable for the long term.
From our point of view the government should have written and delivered a strategic development plan that was an integrated package inclusive of policy strategies, strategic sectoral plans and a detailed guide to implementing these. In our view what it should have done was to establish what has to be done to achieve our peoples’ collective vision between now and 2030.
FRETILIN accepts and assumes that all of our people have aspirations to have poverty reduced, have investment in sound infrastructure that promotes equitable economic growth, access to quality education, access to health and improved living conditions for all, but FRETILIN questions the means in which this proposed plan seeks to convert these aspirations into a plan to achieve them. In essence the content of this proposed plan raises more questions than provides answers for our peoples’ preoccupations on development.
Finally, FRETILIN requests that this Strategic Development Plan be submitted to the normal parliamentary proceedings according to article 100 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders to enable parliament to also hold adequate and board public consultations to ascertain what our peoples’ aspirations are, including the following sectors of society:
• All political parties
• Civil society, including church and religious confessions
• Development partners
• Timorese academics and development advocates
• Civil servants who will have to implement the plan
Such a broad public consultation will be essential so that the strategic development plan can attain the greatest possible national consensus and legitimacy, and so that it can secure all our participation and solidarity when it is implemented in future.
Thank you Mr. President.
Case Summary Period : June 2011 Edition : 31 June 2011 Summary of hearings conducted by the Suai District Court in the latter part of June 2011
During the last week of June 2011, specifically between 20-23 June 2011, JSMP continued its court monitoring at the Suai District Court. This summary only covers activities conducted in the aforementioned jurisdiction during a three day period and does not cover all trial activities that took place during the month of June, due to the limited human resources of JSMP.
During three days of monitoring at the Suai District Court, JSMP observed that hearings were not held in accordance with the predetermined schedule. For example, on the 20th and 21st June 2011, JSMP noted that in the morning the court did not hold any hearings because the defendant, victim and witnesses were late arriving to the court.
Based on information obtained by JSMP from parties and court officials, this often occurs because those residing in the districts covered by the jurisdiction of the Suai District Court find it difficult to travel to the court and home again, and this is a factor that contributes to the delays experienced by the court.
In addition, victims, defendants and witnesses complained that they faced other problems such as no means of transport, or limited options to transport them from the police station to the court. Many of them had to wait a long time or spend a lot of time at the police station before arriving in court.
JSMP believes that both of these circumstances are beyond the control of the court and the police because these problems are related to the roads and the available means of transport. JSMP hopes that the rights of every individual to justice as a citizen of the State can be protected appropriately, and JSMP encourages the related ministries to attend to the aforementioned issues seriously and take concrete steps as soon as possible to deal with these circumstances.
In relation to the hurdles that the parties often face, the Suai District Court will conduct a mobile court in Ainaro District for one case in October this year, even though the first hearing in this trial occurred on 21 June 2011. JSMP welcomes this initiative and the steps taken by the court, because this will bring justice closer to the people in isolated areas and at the same time it can help those who do not have sufficient money or who are unable to overcome other practical obstacles that they face on a regular basis.
Based on court monitoring conducted by JSMP during the aforementioned 3 day period, the Suai District Court held hearings in 9 criminal cases. There were 3 rape cases, 2 cases involving light maltreatment, 1 case of serious maltreatment, 1 case of minor theft, 1 case of aggravated murder and 1 case of fraud (aggravated).
Just like the case summaries provided for other courts, this summary is also aimed at disseminating information to the community about the trials conducted by the Suai District Court.
The following information provides a summary of the hearings that were conducted during a three day period in the Suai District Court:
1. Minor Theft, Case No. 98/PEN/2009/TDS
A hearing in this case was carried out on 20 June 2011 and was presided over by single Judge Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira (international), the Public Prosecution Service was represented by Zélia Trindade, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender João Henrique.
The four defendants LdS, DdJ, FdS and SdS were charged with committing an offence against the victim DdO. The alleged incident occurred on 28 December 2007 in Fatumea Village, Suai–Covalima District. The four defendants were suspected of being involved in the theft of 8 buffaloes belonging to the victim that were then sold across the border in Indonesia.
The hearing did not continue because the four defendants did not appear in court.
JSMP received information in the court room from the judge that the defendant LdS had received a written summons but had failed to appear and it was suspected that the defendant FdS had fled to Indonesia and the police needed to verify his whereabouts. After receiving confirmation that he is in fact in Indonesia, a separate trial will be held for the other defendants. The defendant DdJ refused to sign the summons before the defendant FdS has signed it. The police did not know the whereabouts of the defendant SdS or his new address. The witness AdO received a summons but failed to appear. The two defendants LdS and DdJ and the witness AdO who were given a written summons have to explain their absence within five days, if not then they will have to pay a fine of $10.
The trial was adjourned until 26 September 2011 at 2pm.
2. Aggravated Murder, Case No. 17/PEN/2011/TDS
The final decision was read out on 20 June 2011 by single judge José Maria de Araújo. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by Zélia Trindade, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender João Henrique.
The defendant MM was accused of murdering her husband AF on 27 December 2010 in Urhu, Maubisi Village, Maubisi Sub-District, Ainaru District.
On the day of the incident, the defendant, the victim and their three children were at home. The defendant took some dirty clothes and went to wash them, and the defendant asked the victim to look after the children. The victim refused to look after the children and went to sleep. The attitude of the victim enraged the defendant who went and got a pipe and struck the victim on the head numerous times while he was asleep. The victim suffered serious injury to his head and heavy bleeding. The victim was taken to hospital but could not be saved. Their three children (minors) are staying with the victim’s family (family of the deceased).
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant pursuant to Article 139 (g) of the Penal Code on Aggravated Murder because the victim was the spouse of the defendant, and this charge carries a sentence of between 12 and 25 years imprisonment. After considering the matter the court sentenced the defendant to 12 years imprisonment which was the most lenient sentence available.
The court did not order the defendant to pay court costs or compensation because of her limited financial means. However, the court continued to apply restrictive measures in the form of house arrest against the defendant for a period of 15 days until the decision is deemed to carry the full force of the law.
3. Fraud (aggravated), Case No. 11/PEN/2011/TDS
A hearing in this case was held on 21 June 2011 and was presided over by a panel of judges comprising José Maria de Araújo, Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira and Florencia Freitas. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The defendant RB (police intelligence officer) allegedly committed the crime against the students from classes 1-3 of the Suai High School. The alleged incident occurred in 2009 in Suai-Covalima.
In 2009 the Suai High School entered a contract with the defendant for the procurement of uniforms for students in classes 1-3, but until now the students have not received the uniforms. The contract stated that each uniform would cost US$ 6, but the defendant entered another agreement with the tailor Ud from Java, Indonesia at a cost of US$ 4. Ud came to Suai District and told the school that he had an agreement with the defendant that stated that each uniform would cost $4. The students were upset by this. Also, the defendant received $5000 from the school and another $1000 was to be paid after the goods were delivered.
The witness AdC testified that he did not know about the price per item or the agreement signed between the school and the defendant, and the principal of the school MT would know more about the agreement.
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant pursuant to Article 267 of the Penal Code on aggravated fraud.
The trial will continue on 7 July 2011 at 2pm to hear testimony from the witness Ud (tailor) from Indonesia.
4. Serious Maltreatment, Case No. 24/PEN/2011/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 21 June 2011 and was presided over by a panel of judges comprising Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira, José Maria de Araújo, and Florençia Freitas. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The two defendants CG and MG in this case were charged with committing an offence against the victim LA. According to the prosecutor’s indictment the incident occurred on 31 August 2010 in Nainare Village, Holpilat, Maucatar Sub-District, Suai District.
In the indictment read out by the judge it was alleged that on the aforementioned date at approximately 10pm the victim wanted to go to the home of his mother. The wife of the defendant (LdJA) saw the victim passing by the front of the house and called out and asked the victim if he would like to have some betel nut. The victim entered the house so they could chew some betel nut. When the two of them were chewing on the betel nut the children of LdJA were eating some corn. After that the defendant CG who is the husband of LdJA returned from his plantation and when he arrived home he saw the door closed, and the defendant knocked on the door, but it wasn’t immediately opened, then after about five minutes his wife opened the door.
When the door was opened the defendant saw the victim in his house and he was shocked and he squirted the chili he was holding in his hand towards the face of the victim and slashed the victim’s hand 4 times. The defendant MG also slashed the victim’s hand 4 times. The victim suffered heavy bleeding. At that time their six children were eating corn. The victim was treated at the Suai Public Hospital, but his condition did not improve, so he was transported to the Dili National Hospital. The victim received stiches on his hand and as a result was unable to work, and in addition to the medicine given by the hospital the victim also had to buy medicine for his injury.
The defendant CG in his statement rejected the charges of the prosecutor in relation to squirting chili or stabbing/injuring the victim. The defendant claimed that he did stab the victim, but he did not squirt any chili at the victim. The defendant also stated that the lights were off and all of their children were asleep. The defendant entered the house using a torch. After he came inside he went to put his cane in his room under his bed. When he went to place his cane under the bed it would not go in and he felt something hard, so the defendant shined his torch under the bed and saw the victim there. Suddenly the defendant slashed the victim’s hand with his machete because the victim was holding a machete.
The victim stated that he was under the bed because the defendant has squirted him with chili that had gone in his eyes and he fell down and climbed under the bed. The witness LdJA, who is the wife of the defendant CG, stated that at that time the lights were on in the house and their children were also awake. Two other witnesses, namely MdJG and EdJG, who are the children of the defendant and the witness LdJA, used their right to remain silent during the trial.
The public prosecutor in his recommendation of sentence stated that based on the evidence presented during the trial the defendant CG had admitted that he had slashed the victim’s hand, however it had not been proven that the defendant MG was involved in this case. Therefore the public prosecutor maintained the charges against the defendant CG pursuant to Article 146 of the Penal Code on serious maltreatment; however the public prosecutor asked the court to acquit the defendant MG.
The hearing to announce the decision will be held on 30 June 2011 at 2pm.
5. Light Maltreatment, Case No. 40/PEN/2011/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 21 June 2011 and was presided over by a panel of judges comprising Florencia Freitas, Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira, and José Maria de Araújo. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The three defendants AM, DdC and PMdA were charged with committing an offence against four victims, namely JP, LN, DAC and DS, that allegedly occurred on 1 January 2010 in Ainaro District.
This hearing was scheduled for 10am, however due to problems with transport from the police office and the poor condition of the roads the defendant and the police only arrived in Suai at 12 midday, after departing from Ainaro at 9am. The hearing could not be held at 2pm because another case had been scheduled for that time, therefore the hearing took place at 7.10pm (outside of working hours).
For this reason only one of the defendants provided testimony due to time constraints.
In the indictment read out by the judge it was alleged that on 1 January 2011 at approximately 1am the victim DAC approached the home of the defendant AM and the defendant DdC shot the victim with a dart that struck the victim in the backside. The defendant PMdA also struck the victim and split his lip. In addition to being struck by the defendant DdC, the victim DAC was also struck by the defendant AM and suffered serious injury. The victims JP, LN and DS who were at the scene were also struck. The indictment stated that 3 defendant chased the victims to the home of the victim DAC and damaged the property of the victim such as a tape recorder, tarpaulin, plates and 2 chairs.
During the hearing the defendant PMdA testified that they were attacked first by the aforementioned victims in the home of PMdA. At that time the defendant and the victim were punching each other. The defendant PMdA struck the victim and split his lip and the victim intended to slash the defendant with a machete but he did not manage to do so. The defendant handed over the machete to the village chief VAC. After that the victims JP, LN and the defendant PMdA punched each other and the victim JP tried to stab the defendant and the victim LN took out a dart in order to shoot the defendant, but the two of them did not manage to injure the defendant.
The defendant managed to chase the victims to the home of DAC and threw rocks at the house, destroying property such as 2 wooden chairs, a door, CD and a tape recorder. After that they went home.
The aforementioned property was handed over to the village chief by the defendant and the village chief handed the property over to the police.
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendants pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code on light maltreatment and Article 258 of the Penal Code on minor damage of property.
Because it was too late (8pm) to continue the hearing, and considering that it had taken more than an hour to hear the testimony of one defendant, the court adjourned the hearing, even though 2 defendants and 4 witnesses were present. The panel of judges scheduled the next hearing for 5 October 2011 at 9am in Ainaro District to be conducted by the mobile court. Therefore the testimony of the defendant PMdA will not be considered valid because a new trial will take place in October 2011 (more than 30 days).
6. Light Maltreatment, Case No. 28/PEN/2011/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 22 June 2011 and presided over by single judge Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The three defendants in this case are the siblings NCH, JCH and ICH (female) who were charged with committing an offence against the victim TMB in Maliana District on 17 March 2011.
The victim came to the home of the defendants and yelled out a request to have water diverted to her rice field. Upon hearing the victim yelling out the defendants came outside and had an argument. Not long after the defendant ICH and the victim hit each other. The victim suffered injuries to her neck and cheek and did not work for a week.
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendants pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code on light maltreatment.
During the hearing to announce the final decision the judge decided not to imprison the defendants but only to order them to pay a fine within 30 days, whereby each defendant would have to pay a dollar a day. If they do not pay then they will be imprisoned for 20 days. In relation to compensation for the victim, each defendant must pay $25, and each defendant must pay $10 for court costs. Immediately after the hearing the three defendants paid the fine determined by the court.
7. Rape Case, First Hearing/2011/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 22 June 2011 and was presided over by single judge José Maria de Araújo. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The defendant AA was charged with raping the victim IdA, who was his daughter in law, on 18 August 2008 in Nunumogue Village, Hatubuilico, Ainaro District.
In the first hearing of this trial the judge read out the charges of the Public Prosecutor which stated that on 18 August 2008 at 7pm the defendant raped the victim. At that time the victim was cooking in the kitchen and the defendant approached the victim and raped her.
The defendant claimed that the sexual intercourse was consensual and there was no force. The defendant avoided the police for three years and the police only captured him on 20/6/2011. During that period the defendant fled to three districts, namely Ainaro, Maliana and Suai. He now resides in Suai District, Raibaba Village, Zumalai, and has a new wife.
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant pursuant to Article 285 of the Indonesian Penal Code and Articles 171 and 172 of the Timor-Leste Penal Code. The court applied restrictive measures in the form of temporary detention against the defendant.
8. Rape, Case No. 69/PEN/2009/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 22 June 2011 and was presided over by single judge José Maria de Araújo. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender Marçal Mascarenhas.
The defendants in this case MG and KR (female) allegedly committed the offence against the victim DdJ. The alleged incident occurred in 2005 in Ainaro District. The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant pursuant to Article 173 of the Penal Code on aggravated rape, and Article 177 on sexual abuse of a minor.
In the recommendation of sentence read out by the judge, it was alleged that the rape was committed by the defendant (teacher) against the victim. As a result of this incident the victim became pregnant and fled to her family. The relationship between the two of them was similar to that of a father and an adopted daughter. It was not proven that the defendant KR helped the defendant MG to carry out the aforementioned act.
The court sentenced the defendant MG to four years imprisonment and ordered the defendant to pay compensation of $500 and court costs of $20. The defendant KR was acquitted because it was not proven that she was involved in the aforementioned act.
9. Rape, Case No. 32/PEN/2008/TDS
A hearing in this case was conducted on 22 June 2011 and was presided over by a panel of judges comprising Ana Bella Cabral Ferreira, José Maria de Araújo, and Florençia Freitas. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by António da Silva, and the defendant was represented by Public Defender João Henrique.
There were four defendants in this case, namely AA, JT, AG and GM who were charged with committing an offence against the victim MMT (14 years old). It is alleged that this case occurred on 25 June 2007 in Cendana 2, Suai Kota.
According to the indictment read out by the judge, it is alleged that on the aforementioned date the victim was at the Suai market and it was raining. The defendant AA passed by on a motorcycle and saw the victim. The defendant stopped and offered to take the victim home. Prior to this occurring, they did not know each other. The victim got on the motorcycle but the defendant did not take her home, rather he rode around until night time. At 7pm the defendant took the victim to his house and the other three defendants were there. At that time the defendant AA raped the victim.
The victim testified that at that time she was raped, but only the defendant AA raped her because the victim managed to escape from the scene.
The Public Prosecutor recommended for the court to sentence the defendant AA to 8 years imprisonment and to sentence the other three defendants to 3 years imprisonment. The Public Prosecutor also asked for the defendants to pay compensation of US$ 2000 pursuant to Article 287 of the Indonesian Penal Code, as well as Articles 53, 172, 173 (d), 23 and 24 of the Timor-Leste Penal Code that carry a sentence between 9 and 15 years imprisonment. The Public Defender rejected compensation of that amount because he claimed that the defendants were students and farmers (2 were at university and 2 were farmers).
The final decision will be announced on 4 July 2011 at 2pm.
23 July 2011
According to local media reports, the National Police will set up checkpoints and conduct an illegal weapons search in every suburb of the city.
It comes after a Fatuhada woman and a Bidau youth were shot in separate attacks last week.
East Timor's President Jose Ramos-Horta has reportedly met with Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao to discuss the recent violence.
The President told local media the shootings are by people who want to create instability within the community in exchange for money.
Nelson Belo, from Timorese NGO Fundasaun Mahein, warned the comments could spark public panic.
He told Radio Australia's Connect Asia program the President should not have commented until the all the facts were known.
"The President shouldn't make a comment based on his feelings, he should make a comment based on credible information from state institutions."
Representatives from the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste were unavailable for comment.
Norway has been a strong supporter of East Tmor. Norway is the most important donor in the petroleum sector and East Timor is the largest recipient of aid from the Oil for Development programme.
Norway is also one of the main donors in the field of hydro-electric power and electricity supply.
09 July 2011
July 1, 2011, 2:00am MANILA, Philippines — PhilWeb Corporation, the country’s top online technology firm, announced that it has received a mobile gaming license from Timor Leste (East Timor).
In a disclosure to the Philippine Stock Exchange, the firm said the license enables PhilWeb to immediately launch a suite of mobile games, including SMS-based instant win, under the brand name Gold Mobile.
PhilWeb president Dennis Valdes noted that this was a key milestone in the company’s push to expand in the Asia Pacific region. “Our track record in mobile gaming was critical to the government of East Timor in granting us this license,” he noted.
The firm launched the SMS-raffle “Premyo Sa Resibo” in 2005, and in the past six years has received over 175 million text entries and given out over P165 million in prizes.
PhilWeb said it will be working closely with the leading telecommunications firm in East Timor to immediately launch Gold Mobile to their subscribers.
Valdes also noted that their expansion into Asia Pacific has been very successful so far. “As previously noted, we have signed joint venture agreements with partners in Cambodia, Laos, Guam and Palau, countries where we have now set up subsidiaries to start up business,” he said.
He added that PhilWeb is also actively narrowing its search for partners in Vietnam, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and in other countries in the region.
“This year will be a banner year for PhilWeb’s Asia Pacific division, as it expands the company’s business into markets beyond our Philippine borders,” said Valdes.
PhilWeb previously disclosed that it had received a license from the Cambodia Ministry of Finance to operate a 6/49 lottery in that country. The license allows PhilWeb to launch both paper-based and mobile-based forms of the lottery. (JAL)
Murders, Drugs, Assaults, Embezzlement, Corruption & Land Disputes: Summary of Cases Heard by the Dili District Court in May 2011
Case Summary Period: May 2011 Edition: 31 May 2011 Summary of Cases Heard by the Dili District Court in May 2011 - In May 2011 JSMP continued its monitoring activities in the Dili District Court for both serious and ordinary crimes, as well as civil cases. While some cases were delayed, the trials of other cases progressed as per normal.
Based on the observations of JSMP during the month of May, delays in trying cases at the Dili District Court were not caused by the Court itself, but by the parties to proceedings, such as defendants. Also, witnesses failed to attend court to contribute to the search for justice. Consequently, the failure of individuals to respond to court notifications created problems with the trial process and caused delays.
The aim of this case summary is to disseminate up to date information about the trials that were conducted at the Dili District Court in May 2011, based on the observations of JSMP.
The information below provides a summary of the cases heard by the Dili District Court:
1. Crime of Aggravated Murder, Case No. 34/C.Ord/2011/TDD
On 3 May 2011, the Dili District Court conducted a hearing to read out the final decision in Case No. 34/C.Ord/2011/TDD relating to aggravated murder. The alleged incident occurred in Estadu Village, Ermera District on 16 August 2009. The motive for this incident was because the victim, who was the wife of the defendant, had accumulated a lot of debts without the knowledge of the defendant. At that time they had an argument and the defendant killed the victim.
In its final decision the court sentenced the defendant CS to 14 years imprisonment and ordered him to pay compensation of USD 700.00. The defendant had already served 8 months of pretrial detention in Becora prison.
After the Dili District Court announced the aforementioned verdict the lawyer representing the defendant indicated intent to file an appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.
2. Crime of Attempted Murder, Case No. 239/C.Ord/2010/TDD
The Dili District Court on 5 May 2011 conducted a hearing in a case of attempted murder. The defendant QC was charged with the committing the crime against the victim CC.
The victim told the court that the defendant was intoxicated and suddenly attacked him with a knife that was hidden under his jumper. The victim also testified that in addition to being intoxicated, the defendant also suffers from a mental illness and their neighbors were aware of this.
There was no clear motive why the defendant stabbed the victim. Before the court the defendant exercised his right to remain silent and did not speak about the case.
In relation to indications that the defendant was suffering a mental illness, the court will try and have the defendant taken to a hospital to have a medical examination performed. Therefore, the court decided to adjourn the trial until 3 June 2011.
3. Crime of Alleged Corruption and Misuse of Authority, Case No. 266/C.Ord/2010/TDD
On 9 May 2011, the Dili District Court conducted a hearing to announce its decision in a case of alleged corruption and misuse of authority involving the defendants JLG, AMV and JFC.
The court fully acquitted the defendants from all charges in relation to alleged corruption, misuse of authority and illegal appointments. The public prosecutor was unable to present accurate evidence to support his indictment during the entire trial.
The hearing to announce the decision was presided over by a panel of judges comprising João Ribeiro, SH, João Felgar, SH (international) and Alvaro Freitas, SH. The Prosecution Service was represented by Aderito Tilman and the Public Defender’s Office was represented by Sergio Hornai, SH and Cancio Xavier.
4. Crime of Murder, Case No. 56/C.Ord/2010/TDD
The Dili District Court on 9 May 2011 conducted a hearing in Case No. 56/C.Ord/2010/TDD relating to murder. In this case the 8 defendants MM, MR, MS, MS, JS, CS, IC and VS were accused of murdering the victims MC and EM. It is alleged that the incident occurred in Uatobou Village, Maubara Sub-District, Liquica District on 18 September 2007.
The public prosecutor charged the 8 defendants pursuant to Article 338 of the Indonesian Penal Code on murder, which carries a sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
6 witnesses testified that they did not see firsthand the defendants kill the two victims. The witnesses received information from several of the defendants and others after the 2 victims died.
The court adjourned the trial to hear testimony from other witnesses on 11 May 2011, at 9.30am.
The trial was presided over by a panel of judges comprising Duarte Tilman, SH, José Gonsalves, SH and João Freitas, SH. The Prosecution Service was represented by Baltazár Ramos, SH and the Public Defenders Office was represented by Cancio Xavier, SH.
5. Land Dispute, Case No. 18/Civil/2009/TDD
On 10 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted a hearing in Civil Case No. 18/Civil/2009/TDD relating to a land dispute between the plaintiff AMS and the respondent AS.
The land in dispute is located in Bebora - Dili and is 300 meters squared. The plaintiff or his representative claimed that the aforementioned piece of land belongs to them, and the land was obtained through an auction which was carried out by the Military Court of Surabaya/Indonesia on behalf of Captain AZ in 1996.
Prior to the auction, the land was seized by the Indonesian government because evidence indicated that AZ was involved in a criminal case.
The respondent claimed to be the owner of the land which was obtained from CHH (a Timorese person of Chinese descent) in 1981. In 1982 the front section of the land was leased to Pertamina for 25 years.
The witness HH testified that the auction was a scam because he was not informed about the auction by any party including the court during the Indonesian occupation. The land in dispute was registered in the name of the witness but because of the political conflict in 1999, he gave power of attorney to his adopted son AS.
The trial was presided over by a panel of judges comprising Rosa Brandão, SH, João Ribeiro, SH and Alvaro Maria Freitas, SH. The plaintiff was represented by Arlindo Sanches, SH, and the respondent was represented by Pedro Apariçio, SH. Both of the legal representatives were private lawyers.
The court adjourned the trial until 1 June 2011 at 2.30pm to hear testimony from other witnesses.
6. Crime of Murder, Case No. 56/C.Ord/2009/TDD
On 11 May 2011 the Dili District Court adjourned the trial involving the defendants MM, MR, MS, MS, JS, CS, IC and VS who were charged with murdering the two victims MC and EM in Uatobou Village, Maubara Sub-District, Liquica District on 18 September 2007.
The case was adjourned because 4 witnesses who had been summoned failed to attend, and therefore the court adjourned the trial until 1 June 2011 at 9.30am to hear witness testimony.
7. Crime of Attempted Murder, Case No. 170/acara cepat/2011/TDD
On 12 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted the first hearing in the trial of Case No. 170/acara cepat/2011/TDD relating to attempted murder. This case involved the defendant CS and the victim EP. The alleged incident occurred in Delta 1, near Leader Supermarket, behind the Aimutin Church, Dili at approximately 6.30pm.
The hearing was presided over by a single judge João Felgar, SH (international). The Prosecution Unit was represented by Baltazar Ramos, SH (international), and the defendant was represented by Marcia Sarmento, SH.
The witness LMG (GNR) from Caicoli HQ explained that on 10 May 2011 at 6.30pm a clash occurred between 2 martial arts groups, but he did not clearly identify the two groups. The witness stated that approximately 15 people were involved in the conflict. When the witness arrived at the scene the two groups started to withdraw and the witness saw that the defendant was holding a knife that was still in its pouch and that is why the witness immediately arrested the defendant.
The public prosecutor asked the court to produce items of evidence such as the knife, and then the court examined the knife and established that the knife was approximately 17 centimeters long and that some blood was on the knife. Based on the evidence, the public prosecutor was convinced that there was a clash between two groups, but it was unclear who stabbed the victim. The public prosecutor charged the defendant with Article 145 of the Timor-Leste Penal Code but because the court did not prove the involvement of the defendant the prosecution requested for the court to free the defendant.
The court ordered the defendant to serve house arrest and adjourned the trial until 13 May at 9.30am to announce the final decision.
8. Crime of Misuse of Drugs, Case No. 47/Crime. S/2011/TDD
On 12 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted a hearing in a case of misuse of drugs (sabu-sabu), involving the two defendants AI and ES. The arrest was carried out by the Police on 9 August 2010, in Pantai Kelapa, Dili.
The trial was presided over by single judge Rosa Brandão (international), the Prosecution Service was represented by Hipolito Expostu, SH and the Public Defender’s Office was represented by Sergio de Jesus Hornai, SH and Manuel Expostu, SH.
The trial was adjourned until 24 May 2011 at 9.30am due to the non-attendance of a witness. The two defendants have been in pre-trial detention for 9 months in Becora Prison.
9. Crime of Light Maltreatment, Case No. 33/pidana. S/2011/TDD
On 12 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted a hearing in a case of light maltreatment allegedly committed by the defendant AB against the victim JA. The alleged incident occurred on 19 Mary 2008 in Bidau, Dili.
The trial was presided over by single judge João Ribeiro, SH, the Prosecution Service was represented by Reinato Bere Nahak, SH, and the Public Defender’s Office was represented by Calisto Tout, SH.
The defendant and the witness AR testified that at the time of the incident they were arguing and the defendant hit the witness AR. The victim saw what happened and tried to separate the two of them but the victim was struck, so the victim responded with a kick, and the defendant managed to grab the leg of the victim and stab the victim with a small knife.
Based on the facts revealed during the trial, the public prosecutor stated that the victim was indeed stabbed with a small knife and therefore the actions of the defendant violated Article 145 of the Timor-Leste Penal Code on light maltreatment.
The decision will be announced on 27 May 2011 at 9.00am.
10. Crime of Theft, Case No. 57/C.Ord/2011/TDD
On 16 May 2011 the Dili District Court adjourned the trial of a case involving the defendant AS. It is alleged that the defendant stole rice from a rice warehouse in Bebora, Dili in 2008 (date unknown).
The trial was adjourned until 8 July 2011 at 2.00pm due to the non-attendance of the defendant in court. If the defendant fails to appear on the aforementioned date then the trial will continue in his absence.
The trial was presided over by single judge João Ribeiro, SH, the Prosecution Service was represented by Baltazar Ramos, SH and the Public Defender’s Office was represented by Manuel Exposto, SH.
11. Crime of Suspected Embezzlement and Corruption, Case No. 364/C.Ord/2009/TDD
On 17 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted a hearing in Case No. 364/C.Ord/2009/TDD relating to suspected embezzlement and corruption, involving the defendant RB (state official) which allegedly occurred in 2002.
The hearing was conducted for the purpose of examining testimony from the 4 witnesses CAS, APG, CA and AD. None of the 4 witnesses knew about the generator/diesel belonging to the State that was leased by the defendant to JC in 2002.
The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of Indonesian Law No. 31/1999 on Anti-Corruption for the crime of leasing a state owned generator/diesel to another person with the intention of enriching oneself and one’s family. The defendant was also charged with violating Article 372 and 374 of the Indonesian Penal Code relating to the embezzlement of state assets and corruption.
The trial was presided over by a panel of judges comprising João Ribeiro, SH, Antonio Fonseca, SH, and José Gonsalves, SH. The Prosecution Service was represented by Domingos Barreto, SH and the defendant was represented by Fernando de Carvalho, SH from the Public Defender’s Office.
The court adjourned the trial until 15 June at 2pm to hear the testimony of other witnesses.
12. Crime of Murder due to negligence, Case No. 44/C.Ord/2011/TDD
On 18 May 2011 the Dili District Court conducted a hearing in a case of murder due to negligence allegedly committed by the defendant DX against the victim GM, which occurred on the main road in Fatuhada, on 24 July 2010.
At the time of the incident at approximately 10.00pm the defendant was driving a minibus and struck the victim who was riding a motorcycle along the main road in Fatuhada, right in front of the petrol station. The victim suffered a broken leg, serious injuries to his arms and face and as a result the victim died on the spot.
In his testimony to the court the defendant stated that at the time of the incident the defendant heard a loud noise coming from the tyre of the minibus but the defendant did not know that the victim was under the vehicle. Then the defendant stopped his vehicle in front of Landmark Supermarket and got out to check the condition of his vehicle. At that time many people came carrying stones and pieces of wood and told the defendant that he had struck someone. At the same time the police arrived on the scene and the defendant was taken to the police station.
The court questioned the four witnesses CM, CV, MTM and JA. The witnesses stated that they did not actually witness the incident.
Even though the incident occurred due to negligence of the defendant who had no motive to take the life of another, the defendant’s lack of care resulted in the death of another person. Therefore the defendant was charged with violating Article 140 (1) and (2) of the Timor-Leste Penal Code on the criminal act of negligence causing death which carries a sentence of 4 years imprisonment or a fine.
The trial was presided over by single judge Rosa Brandão (international). The Prosecution Service was represented by Domingos Barreto, SH and the defendant was represented by Manuel Gutteres, SH from the Public Defender’s Office.
The final recommendation will be heard on 27 May 2011 at 10.00pm.
|Dili District Court|
The trial was presided over by judge Rosa Brandão, SH, who was accompanied by two other judges, namely Joao Ribeiro, SH and Alvaro M. Freitas, SH. The Public Prosecution Service was represented by Domingos Barreto, SH and the Public Defender’s Office was represented by Olga Barreto Nunes, SH. Normally the trial would commence at 10am, but on this day it was delayed by one hour because the public defender had rejected the charges presented to the Court of Appeal in relation to the application of pre-trial detention on 3 January 2011 which had not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, the trial continued pursuant to Article 298 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In response to this development, the Executive Director of JSMP, Luis de Oliveira Sampaio, draws our attention to Article 298.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that “any other appeals shall be merely devolutive in their nature”. This means that the trial of a case that has not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal can be continued because there is nothing impeding the two processes that are progressing respectively at the Dili District Court and the Court of Appeal.
In addition, JSMP observed that the defendant has been in pre-trial detention for approximately 9 months. The trial had to proceed to avoid violating the defendants’ rights pursuant to Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the duration of pre-trial detention and other measures.
Based on the chronology of the case that JSMP obtained during the trial, the crime occurred on 22 June 2010 at approximately 8.00pm on the main road near Radio Falintil, Hudi Laran, Dili. At that time the defendant was planning to cook some instant noodles because he had just got home from his job as a construction worker. Shortly after, the defendant heard several people shouting and asking for money. Suddenly several people entered the defendant’s kitchen. Based on the testimony of the defendant, he knew two of those people as Matias and Moises (victim), who were asking for money so they could go and drink alcohol. They abused the defendant and they were holding dangerous weapons such as darts, pieces of wood and stones.
The defendant did not have any money so they beat him with a metal pipe until he fell to the ground and soon after the defendant felt someone pull him by the leg and throw him into some water. For this reason the defendant grabbed the metal pipe and beat them with it, and the victim Moises was seriously injured. After beating them the defendant handed himself into to the Comoro Police Station. The victim was taken to the hospital but he passed away en route. The defendant told the court that he suffered injuries to his leg and head.
The witness DS aged 19 told the court that he and the defendant were neighbors, and at the time of the incident the witness went with M and J to Mota Ulun to drink alcohol and eat some horse meat. After that they returned to the main road near Radio Falintil and continued drinking alcohol with the victim. The witness said that prior to the incident there was a grudge between them related to martial arts rivalry. The witness stated that the defendant started beating the victim Moises, who at that time was returning a glass that he had been drinking from to its owner.
The witness DS provided testimony that was unclear and confusing to those in attendance, especially the court actors.
JSMP values the attendance of the witnesses to provide testimony to the court as this demonstrates that the witnesses have complied with Article 123 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the obligation of witnesses to contribute to the judicial process, and JSMP also acknowledges that witnesses play an important role in revealing the truth about several types of evidence. Testimony can be provided by the victim and other people who directly heard or saw a criminal incident, including eye witness accounts of the crime or when a person is seen committing a crime.
However, JSMP also wishes to encourage court actors to pursue legal measures against those witnesses who do not provide accurate testimony because their action is a crime against justice, and they can be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment or a fine in accordance with Article 278 (1) of the Penal Code, because if a person is not charged with perjury then he/she can do so again in the future.
The court adjourned the trial until 2pm on 29 April 2011 to hear testimony from other witnesses.
Mr Guterres said today parliament requested “an independent and detailed audit” in October 2010 so it could determine whether budgets it had allocated over the last four years had been spent properly and lawfully.
The parliamentary resolution said the audit was needed because of worsening blackouts, the long-overdue US$1 billion national electrification project and the government’s “total incapacity” to solve the problems.
Mr Guterres said that instead of a detailed audit the government provided an inadequate “advice” report from consultant company Delloitte which states: "The services rendered are in nature an advice and do not constitute an audit or other work that guarantees faithfulness in terms of the Australian Auditing Rules."
He said failure to commission an audit again showed the administration’s contempt for parliament.
Mr Guterres told parliament: “It underlines what United Nations officers have said about the executive government in Timor-Leste, especially the de facto prime minister, that he was an obstacle to constitutional democracy in Timor-Leste, with 'the executive, especially Prime Minister is seeking more and more power at the expense of parliament and the judiciary…… this may have diminished the effective roles of the other two pillars and significantly reduced the accountability of the executive and rule of law, with the rule of Prime Minister'."
Mr Guterres said that, despite the inadequacies of the Delloitte report, it pointed to various irregularities and raised urgent concerns that the parliament could not rely on the government to resolve.
“If parliament fails to act, things will only get worse, because Mr. Gusmao is either unwilling or unable to act to remove the members of his government who are responsible for the mess the electricity sector is in,” he said.
He called for the President of the parliament to schedule an urgent debate on the report in the presence of the government.
For further information please contact Jose Teixeira on +670 728 7080