RDTL TREBUNAE DISTRPTAL die DEB€

SECGAQ CRIMES GRAVES

Case NO. 1 11200 1 Ilr~tc: 1 31 1 1 1/3_003 Original: I~nglisli

Bcfore: Judge Dora Martins Dc klorais Sudgc Antonio I-lcldcr Vicra do Carmo .fudge Francesco Florit, presiding and I-apportcur

Registrar: Joao Naro

.ludgcmci~t oT: 13.1 1.2003

The Office of time Public Brosecutol-: MI.. Per Halsbag

Counsel of the accused Ms. Radlnila Dimitijevic for Anastacio Martins Ms. Beatriz Sanchez for Doniingos Concalves

.l-llc trial 01' :\~i:~stacio L l:~~-ti~is- ai'~>~lnci 45 )rc:~~.s olcl. I.;~~-nicl-. 11ia1-1.icd. ~-csicliiig in (; lcno- slid (11' llomingo (;i)ni.:ll\.cs- al-ound -10 ycars olci, scsiciing in Liqllica cli,strict. 13:1/a1-tetc Stil)- clisti-ict- before the Special Pancl I'os tlic Tri:~l 01' Scl'iot~s Crimes in the l3isti'ict Court ol'I)ili (11~1-cin:~Ster: thc "Spccial Pancl") startcd on the 1 st Scl~tcnlhcr 2003 ; ~ n d cllciccl today, ~ l , c 30th Octobcr 2003, \ ~ ~ i t h tlic I-cndcring of the dccision.

After cons~der~ng tlic plea of :;~~ilt niadc by the accusccl Anaslaclo Mart~ns, all tlic c\,~dcncc prcscntcd during the trl:il and thc written and oral statcmcnts from thc dcfcnse and from the Office of the Publ~c P~-oscc~~tol- (hcrcinaftes: tlie "Publ~c Prosccu101-"), tlic Spcci:ll Pnncl scndcrs ~ t s j~~dgcmcnt.

I'ROCEDURAL BACI<CROUND

On 211d May 2001, the I'uldic Prosecutor filed before tlic District C~LII-1 of Dili a WI-ittcn indictmc~it (in English version) against the accused charging them with scvcl-ul counts of crimes against 11 umanity.

Copics of statcmcnts of S ~ V C S ~ L ~ \vitiiesscs and copies of state~~icnts of tlie accuscd Anaslaclo Martins himself, wcl-c attached to tlic indictment. Skctchcs and picl~u-cs of thc crime sccnc, of the burial sites and of the body examination of victi~ns, as well as maps of thc area and ancilla~y doculilents, wel-e also attached.

The Coui-1 clci-k provided notification of the reccipt of the indictment to the accuscd and to thc part icsp~lrs~~aii t to Sect. 26.1 and 2G.2 of UNTAET Reg. 2000130 (as amended). .

After t l ~ c prcl~minal-y hearing, the t1-ial started 011 the 1" September 2003.

After the preliminary formalities (i~icluding a visit to tlie actual residence of the acc~lscd Dorni~igos Gollcalves by judge Dora De Moi-ais and the presiding judge) thc accuscd A~lastacio Marlins pleaded guilty to the first and thc third of the foul- counts contained in the i~idictment against him. Co~l l~ l s 2 and 4 o r the indictment were withdrawn by the Prosccuto~-. The Court PI-oceeded to the v1:rification of the validity of the guilty plca, as I-equircd by Scc. 29 A of UNTAET Reg.2000/:10.

The trial of Domingos Gonca, ves continued with the testimonies of ~~umcrous witnesses.

Followi~~g the guilty plea entcrcd by Anastacio Martins, the trial of the two accused was severed but they were eventually joined again for tlie closing statements.

At the end of the trial, the Pallies were admitted to the closing statements.

The Ilearing \\/as 1hc11 postpol-led to tl1e present date for the final written d e c i s ~ o ~ ~

Inte~-jxctcrsf(~l. English, I ' O I - I L I ~ L I ~ S ~ and Tctum assistcd every acL befcil-c 11ic Coiil-1, \\.hc~-c ~icctied.

111 sc\;i'~.;~l occ;~siolis, ;~cc'ordi~lS to thc I'I.OSCCII(OI-'S \lersion, the t\\*o ~ l c c ~ ~ s c d ~,articip:~rcti ill

tlic activity oS 11lc ~nil i t i :~ in raiding \~ill:~gcs, Il11.c:1tcning the p o l > \ ~ l a l i o ~ ~ :~nd mcnrici~lg pcol,lc al,out tho conscquc~ices 01' a vole f h r i~idcl~c~lclcnce in the pop~llal- consultation. AStcr thc consultation, thcy 21-6 ~lllcgcd to have talien )>art in the bl-utril act of \Iengcance that flagcllatcci the nren o f Liquica and bl-ought de~ltli, ~ l e \ ~ l s t r ~ t i o ~ ~ and dcpo~-~;ition iii Inany villages in that District.

Specifically, Anastncio Mal-tins I Y ~ S clla~-gcd fo1. the murders of three nlcu, .lacinto Dos Santos, 171-ancisco Da Silva al-id Pcdl-o Alvcs, committed 011 thc 4"' Scptcn1bc1- 1999 in thc s ~ t c o of Mehgou in thc course of 311 attack tasgcting CRNT membel-s ~111d thcil- frimilics.

The second charge against the same accuscd I-clatcs to tile murder of Cclcstino Col-cia, committed in Atambua, where thc \liclim had been forcibly dcportcd togclhcr with his family. This was dcsci-ibcd in the indictment as an act of vendetta. The I ' L I ~ I I C 13-~secutor s ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ i t t c d that tlie act was within thc compctcnce of the Special Pallel becausc tlie Cow-1 could cxercisc its un~versal j~lrisdiction with 1-cspect to crimes agai~ist human it)^.

With respcct to Domingos Goncalves, thc Prosecutor allegcd his dil-cct involvcn~cnt in thc ~nurdcr of Gullierino Alves, Clcmentino Go~lca l~ /cs and Paulo Goncalvcs, committed in thc course of an attack against the ,s~lco of Bulcu Mera on the 7" .3<1-' ~ ~ ~ i b c r 1999. Furtli'~rmore, he was accused of dcpol-tatioii of villagers fi-0111 the communities of tlie District of Liqulca to West Timor i l l the aftel-math ol'the p o p ~ ~ l a r consultation.

The Public Prosccutor ul~derlined that thc acts of the accused were undcrtaken as 1121-1 of a widesl~l-cad or systematic attack dii-ected against tlic civilian population, and especially targeting tllose who wcre consrdercd to be pro-indcpcndence, Iilil<cd to or syn~patlictic to tlic independe~lcc cause for East Timor, with lcnowlcdge of the attack. To I-each such conclusion, ~ i o t only tlie pl-cscnce and tlie gencral activity of tlie niilitia was evolccd, but, specifically, a meeting of Besih Mera Putili members was mentioned. This meeting was held on thc 2"" of' September, i n Bazarlctc, dul-in;; which those who foni~ed the I-anlc and file o f the militia were inflamed and exp-essly invited to destroy the v~llages that had given slicllcr and suppoi-led Falentil mcnibel-s.

FACT FfA'DENG

For reasons that don't deserve much explanation, the condition of the two accused, in ]-elation to tlie evidence, is I-ailically different: while Anastacio Mastins, having choscn to admit his guilt renounced the tsial, admitting tlic evidence collected by the Pi-osccutor M / ~ C I I O L I ~ cross examination, the ritual collectioii of cvidcncc before the Court \vas the opiioli fur Domingos C;ocal\~es.

I I;:\ ills ~ I L I ~ L - ~ I 1111s. i t I S c~L*:\I- 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ l l i c : I I I I O L I I ~ L J I I L ~ I I I C ~ L I I I ~ 0 1 . c \ I ~ I L > I I C ~ ~ 0 1 1 I l i ~ ~ I l 111c C ' O ( I I . I

L,:III I - ~ I ! . 111 111c c:lscs I S I I ~ L I - I ~ ~ L ~ I ! ~ ~ I ~ ~ . I * C I ~ C I ~ ~ . si11cc it1 ~ .c l ;~ t io~i I O ,,\ii;~st:lcio hl:~~-ti~is. Ill 111c :lbsclicc 01' tllc c ~ - o s s - ~ \ ~ i l l ~ i ~ l : ~ i i i ~ i ~ . L I I C stirLcir1cnts 01' t I i i t ~ i ' \\.\lo iie1.c i~i tc~-\ . ic>\ \c~i 111 1 1 1 ~

COLII.SC 01' I I I C inilui1-!1 arc 1101 ;iil~.jccl 10 tllc ~0111r:1tiictio11s. \ ; I C ~ I L I I ~ ~ 01' I I I ~ I ~ I O I - J , . I I I ICCI - I ; I~ I I I ! ;

:11id O I I I ~ I . l>,pic:il i i ~ I j ~ i ~ 1 1 ~ i ~ : i \\111cIl cr111 ;~l.I'~cl :I tcsIi111o11)~ ; I I I ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I - its c :~p ;~c i~y to coii\.incc a n d to con1,c.y the I;no\\,lcdgc of liicts. l!ltim:~tcly. tllc adiiiihsion ol'guilt. bascti oil tlic conl'cssioli o f t l ~ e I\ICIS, l~rovidcs coi-I-obor:ltion of the crcciibility of ~ h c t\vo cI1~11.gcs.

In t l ~ c case of the accused An~lstacio Martins, the rnt~l-dcr o f Cclestino Co1.reir1 is suI'ficicntIy \vcll dcpictetl in the \\lords of the \vitncsscs present at the cl-ime scene I N Atambua, \\)here tile I'lct tool< placc: from the statcmcnts of Rita Dos Santos, \viclo\v of tlie dcccascd and of ' the son of his, Abcl Castro, the brutr~lity of the aggression against the victi~n f~llly cnlcrgcs. Tllc violcnce agr~iiist the defcnselcss man \\/as triggered by a previous sliirmisli bct\\/ccn the victim himself and the soil of one of the aggressors; it cncjcd only aftcr scvcral tcns of minutes in an escalation of brut:ilities. Tlicrc are no rcasons to d o ~ ~ b t thc gcn~~incncss of ~ l i c declarations of the I-clalives o f the victims, who p~-c\lioi~sIy l i l l ~ \ \ l tile person and thc name of the accused, colning fi-om Ilic :;n~iic district.

Similal-ly, tlic atlaclc to the v ~ l l ~ t g e of Metagou, L V I ~ I I its cIc ; IC~IY C O ~ I C ~ L I ~ I O I ~ , l i ~ i ~ i s a dcscl.i j~t~o~i in the slatcnients of somc fellow fighters of tlie accuscd Anastacio Marlins and in tile wolds of the s:liiie accused. He coii'tsscd to talilng part to the attack and to participating to the action that led to the death of Francisco Da Silva. Fro111 the sk~ teme~ i t s of Ja11~1;lrio 110s Sa~itos and Arn~cndo Da COIICCC~LI COIIICS a detrtiled picture of tlic murcler w~tl i the participation of many m~l i t ia 1ne111bel.s \vlro share somc ~csponsibility for thc CI-imc. 1 Icrc as well ~t is not possible to find a iy I-eason to wealten tlic credibility o f thc w~tnesscs, w l ~ o don't liavc ally motive to lie anci wllo give vcrsio~is of the episode that are totally compatible and sound. W ~ t h rcspcct to tlie role o r Anastacio Martins, they only rcfcr to the dcath o r Francisco Da Silva; they add that in the course of the salne incursion in tllc village two otlicr \~illagel-s were killed in analogous c~rcumstances. Tliey refer of the Icr~ding ]-ole of the accuscd during tlie attack and lfterwards, when hc harangued villagers dissuadilig them, with threats, to support Falentil.

On these premises, the role of the accused Anastacio Marlins for thc murde~-s to which he pled guilty is clcar and ~lndisputable: tlie consistency and quality of the testimonies and of the same statement of the accuscd is such that 110 doubt is left about the material participatio~i of Aliastacio Ma]-tins to the n~ul-ders of Ccle:;tino Correia and of ITrancisco Da Silva. The same level of u~idisputable certainty is achieved, if not for the direct participation of the accuscd in the Icilling of Jacinto Dos Santos and Pedro Alves, at least for the pl-esencc and the role of the accused in tlie raid to tlie village of Metagou on the 4'" Septeniber 1999. The only attempt, by the accuscd, to justify or to diminish his role i l l tlie murder of PI-ancisco Da Silva (in the statemeilt of 3/5/2000) is \break and untenable: lie says he didn't stab tlic \~ict i~i i but he only tried to take the lanife a\vay f'rom his body. This version conflicts not only \\,it11 common sense but more importantly, with the declai-ations of the two fello~v miliiia membel-s \illlo I-ccalled him stabbing thc victim.

7'1-1~ t\vo remaining charges against the accused Anastacio M a l ~ i n s (ihc i:~ui-dcl- or thi-ec people in the course of 11:c attacl; against lie \:illage of B ~ ~ : L I h-lel-a o1-1 llie 7"' of Scpkn-:bcl- and thc depo~zation or for-ciblc transfer of population ii-om Ljcluica Dist1-ict to \'v'\;e~;t Tilnor bet\\.een rlic 5"' and the 1 1 " ' Scpternber 1999) 11:i\.c b t ~ i ~ i~ild;-a\:,~? bj , ilit I ' ~ . ~ : > ~ . ~ i l ; i i i - . Tiiiii

In t11c c:tw of the nccuscd D o n ~ i n ~ o s Goncal\~cs, only the c\.idclice collcctcd in Co111.t ciln be used to asscss his responsibility in relation to the charges.

In bricl', Ilc I S ~~ccuscd.ol't11c murder of three \8illrigcrs supposedly support~ng ~i~clcpcn~lc~lc~c in 13uliu Mci-a on thc 7"' Scptclnbcr 1999 and of dcpoi-tation o f ~ o j > ~ l l : ~ t i ~ l l Srom 13x1 to Wcht Timor.

I;ollo~ving the order in which nlitiicsscs \vcl-c hc:i~-d:

1) Mateus Dos Santos, a policeman in Bazartetc in 1999: lic ren1cm11c1-ed and dcscl-lbcd tlic mcctlng ol'thc mil~tia ~ncmbcrs, held in Bazarlctc on thc 2"" September 1999, during wllich - the rn~litia leaders Jaciiilo Goncalves, Laurindo and Ncni-icluc harangued the subol-clinalcs , saying that the villages of La~~rema and Buhu Mcra WCI-c Falentil st]-ongholds and tli:~t as such they had to bc attacltcd and suppoi-ters 1;illcd; lic added that thc two accused wcl-c ~lttcnding tlic ~nccting as siniple militia mcmbcrs;

2) Jorge Goncalves, adoptlve son of Guil11e1-mo (or Giliano) Alvcs: llc basically kncw nothing by dirccl ltnowledge and what he rcfcn-ed to was hearsay; declarations rcceivcd by his two 111otlic1-s (the ilatui-a1 and the adoptive) and by brothcrs \vho wcl-c prcscnt at thc crime scene when the deceased was killed. l l e receivcd theis declarations soon after the event (pg. 19, licnring 9/9/03) and lie nzatfe reference to the fact that the militia mclubers prcsellt at the time of the ltilllng were Vito and Domingos Goncalves; if the Iattcr was not directly iilvolvcd i l l the act of killing, the first participated by stabbing to death the victim, immediately after he had bcen shot by a TN1 soldiei-;

3) Filo~lleila De Jesus, partnes of Paulo Goncalves: sllc did 1101 know in any direct dctail about the death of hcr paltrier, she I-efcred, generically, of thc rorcible tl-ansfcr, on tlie 5"' Se~tcmber, by tlie militia, to Bazadete and then to Atambua

4) Leopoldii~a Dos Sanlos, widow of Clcmentino Goncalvcs: she gave a detailed tcsliluoiiy regardii~g tllc dcatll of her husband, an event that she dil-ectly saw. Shc blamcd Vila and .loanit, as the n~aterial pelpe-iratol- of the crime. She recalled tlie 111-csence of Domingo Goncalvcs at the village on that day, but negated his direct involvcnient in the lethal aggression against her husband. Shc added that Domingos Goncalves, together \villi othcr inilitia me~iibei-s, forced the women out of the village and to Bazartetc; finally, s l ~ e I-emembe]-cd the prcscnce of two Domingos, the accused ('the one I'm tallcing about is the one \?/it11 the leg that is not good') and the son of Nasiso and she added that the second v(as 'the one ~vlio tool; us to stay \vith them (in Atambua) because if we had staycd L I ~ the lop \vitl~ the iirst Domingos, we would all be l<illed'.

7) Bcrta Dos Sanlos, scconti \\,it;. o f Cittilller~iio (01- Cii l iano) /It\-cs. She nlc11tivni.d Vito ;IS

the ~,c~-pctr;~tor o f tlic I ~ L I ~ ( ~ C I . 01'1ie1- 11~1sba1icI. ., .

S) Anita Dos Santos, fii-SL wire o f C;~~illic~-mo (or Giliano) Al\/cs: slic inctllioncd Vita ~lnci otlicrs, but I I O ~ Doniingos, as the I ~ L I I - ~ ~ I - ~ I - S of' hcr Iiusband. This witness \vas 01' sc:~l.cc rclc\~:~nce. !

Sul?jcct to there being the dclclion of a part of tlie charge of dcpol-tation (sincc n o cvidcncc has been collected of tlie allegcd dcpol-tation from Mclagou and Lcgumea or for days diSferent from the 7"' o r Septclnbcr), what 1s dcsci-ibed in the ti~.st and secolid couiit agaiilst Domingo Gonc:llvcs happened in a single episode: the ]-aid of the village of I~UICLI h4cra on the 7''' September 1999. The presclicc and the active role of the accuscd in that contest can bc consldcrcd as 111-ovcn bcyond ally rc:~sonablc do~tbt. Indeed tlie declarations at lcast ofTom:is Goncalvcs and Lcopoldi~~a Dos Salitos testify of the presence of Domjngos Goncalves as an active participant to the attack to tlie village and as a person directly iilvolvcd in the death at least of Paulo Goncalves.

The Court can not share the 1x1-plcritics illustrated by the Dcfcnse Counsel about the declal-ations given in Coud by To~nas u c ,,l;es: his illustrations of the ract did not: show the contradictions alleged by [lie defense and the attcmpt to disqualify his testiiiiol~y by simply alleging that lie no~irisl~ed a sense of revenge for what ~nilitias tiid to his f a i~~ i ly is inherently weak. On the contl-ary, his rial-ration of the facts was very simple and consistent with those 11ca1-d in many similar cascs. This Icind of attack, mainly i n the aftel-m;itIi of the popular consultation, had a siinilar pattern in diffcl-cnt districts, and was obviously a response to a comliion policy of destniction and revenge. To think of a personal 11lotivc as the trigger of a false tcstiino~ly does not justify why the testi~nony is so isolated and sporadic tliat even the widow of Paulo (;oncalves is not able to ~nentioil the same accuscd (she was not in the village at the moine~ll of the attack but she was infonned that the killers were Vito and a mcn callcd Ameu, not Domi~igos Go~lcalves) Had tliere been the will to deceive the ti-uth, at lcast this minimum coordination \vould have been acliievcd.

Olhcl- perplexities ill~~strated by the Defense Counsel are ul~justificd as \\/ell: what rclc\~ancc can questiol~s like 'why didn't you escape if you lu~e\v tliat the militia would have come agaiin?' or 'why ulcre you together that day?'. These questioris would be of little use in a developed context but are basically incomprehensible, if not ~llispl;~ced, ill a do\v~ltrodde~~ cultu~.al environment. It is typical of thcse wi~nesses, of whom many cxamples can be found il l East Timor, pcople \\ritki a very modest culture and obviously not prcpal-ed oi- an1al-c oflhe :-tllcs and cuslouis of the examination in caul-t, to be e:;poscd to con:]-aciictions an(! iosc; oi' race.

0 1 1 t l ~ c oillcr l i :~~ i~ l . 11. i l ~ c : ~ c c ~ ~ s : ~ l i o ~ i :~g:li~isl l ) o i ~ i i ~ ~ g o ~ i o ~ i ~ ; ~ l \ . c h Is :I IIC. I J . ~ ~ O I ~ ~ ; I I \ cs I S I I I C tarset ol' an i11l:lnlous :inJ ~lcl'ruii~lto~-y a c c ~ ~ s a ~ i n l i b:~sccl o n :In unrcp~.cs:;cd cicsil-c. 01' c.\,il re\.cngc. it's not clcnr \\ hy till- :lccus:~tion icicn1ific.d him, a s i i ~ ~ p l c niilitia ~ncll-thcr. ol'1n:111y, ~1s thc scnpcgo:lt. It is rilso ui~clc:~~. \\,lly tlic orcheslr~~tion 01' I.c\.cngc itscll' \\,as so 17oo1.l). built.

Ultimalcly, tlic only cicfcnsc: that \~:ls p ~ ~ t Sor\\~ai-d by the Coi~nscl- thc dcScnsc ol' a \~inciicativc lie- is not n sound argument 2nd its rebuttal, cmpllasizing thc 111cli of~.casoii;tblc g~-otincis of disclnalilic:~tio~~ of thc tcstimony, consoliclatcs and col-I-obol-atcs the tcstimony i tsel f.

It is LISCSLI~ here to make one last point ~\11t11 I-cspcct to \vitness testimonies. 'l'lie testimony of h4ateus Dos Santos, a policcnian in Dazal*tctc at the timc o r tlie facts, clucldaled tlic sccnal-lo 111 \vhich tlic criminal activity descr~becl in tlic indictment took pl:lce, by 1-cfc1-1-ing to the mccting held in tllc sub-district town of Bazartcte on the 2"" of Scptcmbcr, attcndcd by many rn~litla nlcmbcrs, thc t\vo accuscd il~cludcd; dul-ing the mccting, thc plans of pc~-scc~llioii a g a ~ i s t thc so-callcd 'Falcntil strongholds' wcl-c sct out and illustrated w ~ t h tlic ~lsual inflamatoi-y words by militia Icaders. Specifically, in tlie words of 11ic witness, Jac~lito Goncalves and Launndo, hcatis of the militia, spolte of "hurting peoplc and burning hoiiscs"; they added that Bulw Mcra and Laurema were Falc~itil strongholds and that, as such, they would go and attack those villages. Tlicy said "they would go and a s s a ~ l t the Falcntll and, ~f not Ilicrc, they would l t i l l tlie pcoplc". Answcr~ng the cluestion oft l ie Dcfensc Counsel a b o ~ ~ t what Domingo Gonc:tlvcs did in tllc coui-sc of the meeting, the witness scplicd: "llc is liltc from the peoplc so hc just rcccivcd ordel-s from Jacinto and Laurindo". There can not bc much doubt with rcspect to thc meaning, the f~lnction and the outcollie of t l t~ s mccting or 011

the crcdibillty of the witness, against whom is not rcasol~ablc to find ally sllade of suspect or bias. . -

I '

Bcl'ol-e focusing on the issue of the i~ldividual c~-irnil~al responsibility 01 the two accuscd, the Pancl must address two diffircnt qiiestions raised []-om the decision talcen by the Court of Appeal of 15"' July 2003 in the case of the Prosecutor against Arnlando dos Santos. This decision, by addressing the issues of the subsidiai-y applicable law and the issue of not I-ctroactive applical~ility of Regulation 200011 5, has pill-ported to introduce a totally diffel-cnt scenario for the judgment of the crimes Falling within the competence of thc Special Pancl.

Indeed,tliis panncl has not yet had the possibility to express its opinion on the issucs, but in case of disagl-ecmeiit \\lit11 thc new i~~tei-pretation, it can't simply ingore the picccdent of the superior Caul-t ncglccting application to it. 011 the opposite, in case of cant]-ast, it is prol~cr, fol- this inferioul- court to express openly its disagreement; in older to offer to tile supci.io;. body al-gu:nen~s and lines of ~ l i o ~ ~ ~ ~ l i t \zlliicli could evenutally bi-ing tlu a beitel. dzlinitiolis or 1l1c issucs 011 the i1oi11.. l ' l~is d i a lo~uc bo:\\.cen I!IC Coui-1s 111:!)/ l-~clp a bct:cl- di:i: i \ l~\i{~:i o f jllj.i~!~C~I C'o:l~ej>Ls ;~!ld ; ~ ; : ~ l s 1:) COl-~l:-i\j~l!c lb {].IC ~ ~ ~ O ~ L I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? O f L ~ C i l ~ ~ ! c l - j ~ ~ - c ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ O f i:.,: I::','. I!.! Ea5t Till?o?-.

So. tllc iji-st I S S L I C 011 l l~c ; I ~ ~ : I I ~ ~ : I 1s t \ i ; \ l O S 1 1 1 ~ S L I ~ ) S ~ ~ ~ ; I I - ! : ~ p ] ~ l i c : i l ~ I ~ l:l\\ . \ \ l ~ i ~ , l l 1 : ) i l i c ~

~ l ~ c ~ l t ~ o i l c i l dcc,ihion \ \ a s Ilcld to he I ' o l - t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c s c . 'l'lic l'ai-lial~icnt has al~.cail\- \.o~cil lllc I . i i I l

\\llicll statcs 111;it lliclo~lc'si;iil 12;.l\\. o n the ~ p j , o ~ i t c . I I I L I ~ ~ 1)c talicn as tlic subsidi:~~.!, :~l>l,lic:~hlc la\\. oi'111is C'oulltl-17. 7'11ougii. a t this point. tllc bill has not ),ct bee11 s i~ i i ed 1)): tlic 1 ' 1 - C S ~ C ~ ~ I I ~ 01' I<c'lx~hlic l i ~ l - : I ~ I - o \ . : I ~ 2nd h:~s 110t ycr go11c 1111-ou~h tllc ii,llo\\,ing iinisliiny steps \ \ . l l i~11 ;II.C

I I ~ ~ c I L ' ~ 1;)1. ;I \ ? i l l to bccoiiic a n cnforccablc anci binding piccc of Iegislatio~l ( p u h l i c a ~ i o ~ ~ 011

the (2lzcttc anci r~~icirlio 1c~gl.s). .4ccol.dingIy, lie I'a11cl still hnvc to f'lcc thc intcj,l.ctatioil 01' Section 3, UNTAET 1:cl;ulation 1 0 0 ~ ~ / 1 , ot'i'crcd by the Court of'Apl,cal.

This I'anel is not inclined to Sollo\v the \liewpoint on the applicable la\?! set 1,)~ thc dccision of' the COLII-t of' Apl>eaI in thc case oS AI-mnndo do S~untos and in otllcl- rcccnt cascs for tlic reasons all-cady o ~ ~ t l i ~ i c d in an interlocutory dccision issued in the case 2002/06, Pl.osccuto~. against C~I-10s SO;II.CS a.1c.a. C~!r~i lan.

If the ~ntcl-pictation of tlie Sec. 3 of UNTAET Rcg.190C)/1 welc bxscd o n tllc 1'01-tugucsc vc~.sion of the Rcgulat~on, which refers to "as lels vigentcs em Timor Lcstc ~untcs de 25 cie Outubro 1999", thc use of tlic prcsent partic~plc "\~igclitcs" would clearly leavc the door opcn to a (maybe So~~iialistic, but surely not 'unconstitutional') lcllding ol' the Icgal tcxt as a reference to tlie laws or statutes oS I'ortugal which, tlioi~gh 1101 applied or dc ,/uclo not applicable under the Indonesian rule bccausc of the ~ u i l a w f ~ ~ l occupation (when Pol-tugucse statutes were not dc facio enforceable), could still havc tlic pretcncc of being tlic lcgal toxt of tlic (former) colony, - - despite - the Indonesian invasion and subscclucnt occupation. Indccd, "vigentcs" mealis, literally, in this contcst, simply 'applicable' and applicable in theory, not In ~ ) r a c t ~ w . But the Eiigllsli vcrsioli of Sec t~on 3, in tlie relcvant passage, mentions tlic "laws u j ~ / ~ l i c ~ I in East Timor prior to 25 October 1999" and not upplicahlc, which nieans a rcrcrence to those IBWS wl~ich were enforced in /,raciice. This discrepancy 111 lcgal tcr~i~inology lias given rlsc to the dirfcrcnt iiiterprctation o i tlic law. The conhi-mntlon of tlic amb~guity of the tmnslatioii call bc f o ~ m d in thc titlc of the saiilc scctio~l whlch, in tlie Engllsh text, is "Applicable law in East Ti~iioi-" (wl~ich means the law that 'in Ilic f i ~ t t ~ ~ - e ' ~ r l l l

be talten as thc law) wliilc in 1'01-tugucse is, again, 'Lei vigentc cm Tirnor Lcste'.

In othcl- words, in the Porlugucse text, tlie same expression (vigcntc) I S uscd to rcScr to two difkrent concepts, which in t l ~ c English text dcscrvcd two diffcrcnt \vords (applicablc in the liiti~rc ancl applied in thc past) Tlie divcrgelicc is easily solved accol-ding to scction 3.1 UNTAET Rcg.199913, on tlic Official Gazette of East Tunor: In case of divergence, the English text shall prevail. Accordingly, thc refcl-ence i:; to the laws a1,plied in practice, which indisputably wcrc Indones~an.

Other arguinents could be offcrcd (c.g., listing Indonesian statutes which have been enforccd or dclcted, 01- noting that thc application of I-'ortugucse Statutcs \vould not be S L I ~ ~ O I - ~ C ~ by any level of legal 'kno~lledge ' oS the la\\/: a prel-equisitc conimonly I-ccluil-cd in any civilizeci co~~l i t ry , not only for el-iminal law) but tile literal argnmcnt appeal-s so clcar-cut that it tlocs n o t iiccd fill-Llier s~ i ] , ]x~~- t (i17 ~1,:li.i.s 11o11,Jif iiii~;-j)refilfio)).

'1-llc \\,ords 11sc~l in tlic ( ' O U I - t oSAl~ l~ca l s ' tlecision 21-c clcal-: alicl- ~ l i c i ~ t i o n i i ~ ~ Scctiol~ 3 1 ol' the Constitulioii. tlle C'o~11.t gocs 011 ~ : l )~ ing (1'2. 17, I:1s1 IILII-l) tliat "So, tic'sl~itr \\.list t l ~ c P r o s c c ~ ~ ~ o r and tile Sl~ecinl Panel understood, though tllc fiicts cominittcd by the nccuscd in 1999 could be qualilied :IS C'ri~iles against I-Iumanity pul.surlnt Scction 5.1 a ) IJNTAE71' Rcg.2000115, hc (the accusccf) can not be judgcd and con\~ictcd o n the basis on this ci.iniin;~l la\\/, which L\~;IS not in csistcncc at the tilnc of the facts and, accordingly, can not be applicd retri~:~ctivcIy. Being posterior lo facts, that Scction only coulcl be applic:~ble r~tsoact i \~cly i l ' i t were mol-c li ivo~~rablc to tlic ; ICCLISC~, \vhat C ~ O C S not 1 1 3 ~ ~ c n in thc c~tse."

\Yith this classically posit~vistt'c apl~roacli, thc Courl has solved in tlic s~mplcs t but also Inost elegant \\lay the issue of ~-etl.c):~cti\lily in the appl~ca t~on of thc criminal Statute, UNTABT l icg~~la t ion 200011 5 .

Despite its clarity, tliat passage 113s bccn misunderstood anii read as declaring Itcgulation 20001 15 unconstilutionr~l.

I t does not. Thcrc is no 11assagc in the dccisioli oC l l ~ e Co~ir t of Al~l'cal \vliicl~ can be interpreted as an explicit or implicit declaration of unconstitutionality of the mcntioncd Regulation. The Coui-t silnply states that the Iiegulation, 111-on~ulgatcd after tlic lllcts 171-0~1g11t berorc its attention took place. .:. 1 -pplicable to those facts, by virtue of Scction 3 ! of t l ~ c Constitution.

'I'hcrc is no conllict between norms (bctwccn the Reg~llation and thc Constitution) and tllc Court of Appcal nevel- dared to declare that.

To add ~ ~ i o r e , it is worth noticing that the ~~~is~inders tandi i ig of the commentators is derived fl-om a confusion rcgardlng thc I-elations between norms: t l ~ c relation between a Statute ancl a Constitution promulgated aiicr tlic promulgation o r the Statutc (in case of conflict bctwccn tlic two s o ~ ~ r c e s ) is not I-esolvcd by way of a declal-ation of unconstitut~onality, l ~ t simply by way of abi-ogation (Section 165 Const.). T11c supel-ior source prevails because it I S postcriol. and illcompatible wjth the inferior sou~.cc which is abrogated. General principles state that the same r e s ~ ~ l t would be ach~cvcd if tlic n o n l ~ s were on an equal level.

So, according to the Caul-t of' Appcal, the Iiegulation was not unconst~tutional but I-athei-, intci-i31-ctcd in harn~ony with the Constitution.

The conclusion I-cached by thc C ~ L I I - t of Appeal attracted great ci-iticism and gave I-isc Lo a dcba~c bascd on a~-g~umcnts 111at are themselves exposed to the criticis~u that they ~~ii:,:cd. \i8i!llo~lt j~~s t i f i~ ; l t ion , pl.incil3lcs coming fi-om diffcl-ent Icgal conlexts. Tile Court of Appwl

. ,

iipi~licd tilt 11-adilional positi;listic apl?~.oacii. co;nmon to all c'ii:il /(;I\. c o u ~ ~ t ~ . i c i . ;\'Ii!cIl : ~ t t r i b ~ ~ ~ c s tlic q ~ l a l i f i c a ~ i o ~ ~ fif. SOLII-cc of 1101-111s o~i ly to t l~osc ~ ~ ~ I C ) I - S 01. ~I-I:,I!-LII-IIC;-IL?, L!:::?. :!IK

. . . ; - C C O ~ I I I Z C ~ V ~ , ~ L I I ~ I I L I I C S ) , , S L C I I ~ L : I - I ~ I - I L I ~ ~ ( j c,,:/1-:1 o/-~'i/ie111 S O L I I ~ C C S . .~~.ccul-di:~s!\ , / . - a L!:c\, C ; ; ( ~ ; I !

. , CUllSICll?Y g i \ i i -~g \'~j.llte LO C l ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ T l a l ~ ! ! l i l \ ~ ~ l ~ i ~ ! ~ ~ ~ i ~ ? ~ ~ Crillli;i3~ ]L.Y\' s ~ ~ I c c . \','\!'21-1 ' ~ 1 7 ~ C'\ C:.li>, 10:)i.

~ I ; I c c . 11 \ 3 , x s I ~ O I a ~ C J U ! ~ ? (I!. I;(.,I-:-I?:, : i ~ ~ ~ ~ l i ~ ~ , ! ; i c !I? I!?C C'o~l!:tl-~..

' l - l~c L ' O L I ~ I 01. Appc:ll c l i ~ ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ c d 11) I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I - ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ iiic l c g ~ ~ l ~ l ~ ~ ; ~ l i l i c : ~ ~ i c ~ : ~ ol~i l ic c \ ~\11is !I) lCP)O 111 lisl~t 01. tlic I ' O S ~ L I ~ L I ~ ~ C C r i i l~ i~~ ; \ l C'o~k. i ~ i \lit : \ s s i ~ ~ ~ ~ p t i o ~ i t11;1i the s c i ~ ~ ~ : i l i l ~ i c : ~ ~ i o ~ ~ 01. tllc i';lc'ts as CI-inlcs of ' gcilocitic (il~cluticd in tile I ' O I - ~ L I ~ L I ~ S ~ (I'riminal Code of 1004) \ \ a ~ ~ l c i s;ltisSy llic rcil~~isitc oI'"n~11lu1n el-imcn s i~ i c Icgc".

-Tllis 1':llicl can liot share the same i t 1loc.s appear congl-uous ~llat the Co~lr t ol'/\l,l~cal clc\~ated tlic princil~lc of n ~ ~ l l ~ l r n crimcn sinc Icge- which itself is dcsigl-rcci to pi-omotc a S L I ; U ; U I ~ C ~ of clarily and stability i n tcrms of the applied la\\/- \vhilc at [Ill: same time. decla~-ing rll:~t Pol-t~~gucse \\Ins the ap17Iicd law. By declaring P O ~ ~ L I ~ L I C S C ;IS tile al,l,licti I;l\v, tlic Court oS Appcal crcatccl a fiction t1iat coulri not give the stability and clarity iniplicil in ~ l i c principlc of nullurn crimcn sinc Icge bccausc, in fact, thcrc \I/;IS 110 way the P O ~ ~ U ~ L I C S C Ian1 \V:IS Icnown in East Timol- during this period. Thcl-e was no Cjazctte (01- i~ ldcc~ l p~1blicatio1-1) of l'ortugl~ese la\vs in East Timor and the Portuguese law was as CS~I - :~ I ICOLIS i l l

East Timor during Indoncsian rule as any other foreign statute.

Abandoning the approach o r thc Court of Appeal, it is fitting to consider the ]>I-inciplc o f 'nullun CI-imen sinc Icgc' as it was fl-amcd within Indonesian law.

The plain reality is tliat the principle of 'ni~llun cl-imcn sine pracvia legc' is a principlc oflhc: Indonesian legal syslem, always prcsent in t l ~ c Icgislation of the Rcpublic of h~donesia at tlic level of ordinary legislation (Section 1 of the Indo~lcsian Pcnal Code statcs "No act shall be punished ill~less by \ ~ ~ ~ - t u e of a prior statutory penal provision") and now risen to tlic constitutional levcl by the Second Amendment of Ilidoiiesia~l Const i t~~tlon, in~l-oduccd on 18"' A L I ~ L I S ~ 2000. Ob\/iously, this Constitution:~I Amendment happc~led in Indonesia after the popi~la- consultation of A L I ~ L I S ~ 1999 and at the end of Ihc process of independence of East Tilnoi- and therefore has n3 rclevancc hci-c.

The framing of the 111-inciple of nullurn CI-~~IICII sine lege ill the Indonesian legal syslem is a slatemelit of the principle in its simplest forni, making rcfel-cnce only to statues as source of cr ini i~lal i~at io~l . T l ~ c principle zs it is stated in Scctioii 1 of the Indonesian Pcnal Code would, on its face, prci/cnt the forniulction of indictments for crilncs against hiumanity because unt11 the end oflndonesian occupation o r East Tinlor, Indonesia did not have any legislation (i.c. a statute) criniinalizing behaviours falling within the definition of cri111es against hu111a11ity. Nol- could a similar source be found in an international con\~entioiial instrument agreed upon by t11e Republic of Indonesia, since there's 110 international treaty or convention providing f a - tlic c r~~ i i i na l i za t l o~~ of CI-imcs against huma~iity.

I-{o\vcvcr, it must be stated clcal-ly that while Iudoncsian law \\{as the applied law in East Tiniol- during this period, the Indonesian occupation was an abusive one. Tlic Indonesians, by their acts of occupation, introduced by force in East Timor their own legal system. Rccognising this. it would be a cruelly ironic contradiction that an abusive poc\/er- s l l o~~ ld benefit from the protections in their legal syste1-11 to the estcnt tliat they arc immune fi-om the CI-i~iii~ial consecjLlcnces of the;!- abuse.

I t c:ii1110t o l?\ . io~~sIy I)c s:liil t1-1;lt 111c />siilcil>lc ol' '11ul1~1rn cl.i~ncn s i~ l c 1cgc' is ill i1sc.11' ;In ;~l>i~si\ .c o11c nor t l ~ ~ t . 111 itscli.. [llc Indoncsian ~wlitical system is abusi\c. I l ~ \ \ . c \ ~ c r . i n rhc contest ot' E:~sr I'i~lior. t l~c act a l 'br in~ing tllc Indo~ lc s i~~n Icgal sJ1stcm to East ?'ilno~- 1)): \\,a!; 01' h r c c ancl ~ l s u ~ - ~ x ~ t i o n , ~iialics of a Legalily an Illcg:lli[y 2nd tllosc \\,llo actcd o l ~ the basis ol' that Illcgrllity could \vrongly cspcct to be sl~iclded by i t . In tllc contest of an nblisi\jc rcgimc committing cl.irncs agriinst humanity and \ \ / i d e s p r ~ d :abuses al'Iiun~;ln rights, thc ci'ii.ct ol' thc principle of 'n~illum crime11 sine lege' cstablishcs immunity i'rom prosecution that would be intolcl-:lblc. The conclusion tIicrcTorc which li)llows must bc the ~-cmo\ral o1'1hc protcc~ion which indccd \\!as only, in this contest, 3 coroll~lry of a n abusive occi~p:~tion.

Abancloning the a11171-oach of the principle as ~t is fi.:m~cd in the Indoncsian leg:ll system, i t thercforc bccomes neccssasy to considel- thc principle :IS i t was int~~oduccd into Ijnst l'imor by UNTABT liegulation.

The Trar~sitional Adminish-ation, acting as a ]>olitical administl-ation akin to a so\ic~-eign powcr, cstablishcd a fi-amcwork of applicable law in UNTABT Rcgulr~tion 199011. According to Scction 3, the applicable law must not be incompatible with various h~~rna i i rigl~ts instl-umcnts detailed in Scction 2. Section 2 includes the 11itc1-national Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPII). This covenant fi-amcs tlie principlc of "ni~l l i~m crimcn sine legc" in a way that it qualified (unlilce in Section 1 of t l ~ c Indoncsian CI-imiia! Code). Section 15.1 PI-o~lidcs:

No one shall bc lleld guilty of m y criminal offcnce on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a cl-iniinal offeilcc, lmdcr national or intematio~ial law, :it the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavicl- penally be imposed than tlic one that was apl711cable at the time ~ f l ~ e ~ i llie criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to tlie commiss~on of the offcnce, provision is made by law for the ~mposition of the lighter pcnal ty, tlic offcndcr shall \~encfii Ihcrcby.

Scction 15.2 states:

2. Nothing in this al-tlcle shall r)rcjudice thc trial and punish~i~cnt of any persoll for any act or omission which, at the tlme w len it was conllnitted, M ~ S c1-imi11al according to the genci-al l>rincil71e~of law recognized by the community of nations.

Section 15.2 thus provides For the retroacti\/e q~~alification as criminal of acts that are clearly recogniscd as c1-imi11al in customary intcl-national law and, following from the el-adication of the immunity created by tile '11ul1~1rn crimen sine lege' principle in the context of'tlle abusive I>OLVCI- o f Illdo~lesia ill E;ISL Timor, this is a perfectly acceptable fomiulation.

111 othcl- words. aftel- the remo\:al of the - sliicl? .- as a C O I I S C C I U C I ~ C C of the Incloncsi:\li i l l e~a l occup:ition, the nciir lesal TI-ame\vol-k in~~-oduccd I>)! tile United Nation:; and b:i.;cti li!?;,ll

. . ,

jnlc~-n:i~io~r~il l a \ \ , , !jllccl 111o \.acuurn -. \\.ill? its ~ \ > ; I - I legali~y L ! I ~ I c \ J c ~ - ~ i'i.ol11 a j>ii!.ci>' ]~i)sii!\ '~>i;C . .

\ ~ c \ ' : I > ~ ~ I I I hiid i1-1~ i7Oi';'L'I- ici f1ii1.11~ 1 1 1 ~ j>l-iii~ijilc ~ i ' ' i ? i i i i i ~ ~ i i ~ l . i i i i ~ i i i,;~.i;: 1e;e' :!i :!;c \' 2.;

L~ IOLI? !~L 11101.~ pl.(,jjc!- > i l . i ~ i ]:-I YL \\.,?,!; illat ~ ~ ~ t i l d I I O I l > ~ COI I~~IL :~ : ICLI bf. :is L ' O L ~ > I \ , C . :I i - ,L 'y~! l i . s j l l c c 25 c jc~ube! . ]()C)v. ;]]c ]:(\I , , 0: E ~ ~ s 1 Til;:(,]- Lijlb:,:,,cd ljlc ~ - y : i - ~ , k , i i j . > , c ,. ~ L I , : , * " ,-:-,-,,,<. L,;~.. 1 0

. . 011 l ~ ~ l l c ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ l c ~ ~ c c . tlic C'o~ist i t .~c~~t ; l s s c ~ ~ i l ~ l y 01. 1{:1st Tiillor- ~ ~ c t i ~ l g :IS so\crcigi~ ~ O \ I ! I C : I \

po\\.er- est:lblisl~cd i ~ s C'oilsti~~~tion nllct ~ h c l>~-i~lciplcs coiitaincd tllci.cin as tile lligllcst 1.01.111

o f l:i\\' i l l 1;;1st 71-ilnol-. Section 31 co~i t ;~ i~ l s 1 1 1 ~ conccpl 01' ' n ~ ~ l l ~ r n l c~-i~ncil s i~ic legc'. I!' Scction 31 is I . C L I ~ as cscluding in~c~-n:ltioilal cus~on1~11-y 1a\\t as a sew-ce of rct~.oacti\zc c~-i~i~i~l: i l isat io~~. the cft'cct \\{oi~ld be to ~-c-clu:~lify as simple anci 01-din:11-y ci-i~ncs :lets that \\;el-e crimes against llumonity [luring tlie period 25 Octobcr IC)CIO until 19 M a y 2003. Indecd, this intcl-1"-etation is prevented by the 131-escncc of Scction 160 of thc Constitution. Scction 160 co~itains clear p~.oilision for the p~~oscculion of "crimcs g gain st hurn:i~iit)/ of'[sic] genocide or \\1ar1' that OCCII~I-cd i l l East Timol- during tllc pcriod of Indonesian occupation \vitliin national or intcrn:~tional courts. This woi-ding can not stluicl alonc ;ind c;\n only hc iindcrstood as a cla1.ificatio11 :uid an i~itc~-prctatio~i of othct- Constitutionil j>lx~\lisio~is (inclucicd, as it is, in the ITin:l1 and TI-ansitional Provisions), such as, in tlie 13rcscnt case, Scction 3 1 . As an cfSect ofthi:; systematic intcl-prctation, in-~poscd if not clse, by tllc nccd of not va~iisliing tlic presence of Scction 160 i l l the Constitiition, Section 3 1 must be I-cad as not interfering with the previous crimina1iz:ltio of all-ocitics of 1!19!, as cl-imcs against Ilumanity, \vliei-c the casc may occur.

Thc abow lllustratcd 111te1-prctations diffci- fi-om thosc outlincd by tlie Court of Appeal on Llle samc ISSLIC. Nonetheless, tliis I'ailcl docs not think to be 6b;d -- by the lxecedents of the Court of Appeal, which can not bc lield as 6 h d i 1 ; ~ o n the infcrior coul-t. Indecd, the provision of

..I* I section 2.3 UNTAET Reg.2000/1 1, 111 itself ambiguous - afh-ming the binding naturc of precedent decisio.-t , '.;!e confir~iiiiig the independence of the siiiglc judge- 'is now i~icompatible with the princ~plc ol' subordination of Courts oiily to law and to thc Colistitutioii itself (Sectioi~ 119 of tlie Constitution). OBviously, the two concepts (subordiiiatio~i olily to law -Scc.llc) Cost.- and rule of .s/cu-c cleci.ris -Scc.2.3 UN'TAET Rcg.2000/11) cannot stand togethcr and in casc of conflict bctwccn a statute brought In before tlic Coilst~tution and t l ~ c Constitution itself, the statue will bc abrogated and tlie second n o m will prevail, according to general principles \\rhich find confi~mation in Sect~on 165 of the Constitut~on. In the e ~ ~ d , the mcntioncd Scction 2.3 of UNTAET Reg.200011 1 is inapplicable bccausc implicitly abrogated for inconsistency w ~ t h Section 1 19 of the Coiistitution.

Upon the premise outlined above, the il~dividual criminal rcsl>onsjbility of thc two i~ccused Sol- the crimes of count 1 of indict~iient (Anastacio Mal-tins) and for count 1 and 2 (fol-

DorningosG~roncal\~es), can be affi~mcd. For thc murder of Celestino Correia (count 3 against A~lastacio Martins) the Coui-t f.nds that ~Ilcre is a lack of jurisdiction.

In he first place, \vilh ~.cgasds to thc cjualification of the crimes of couiit 1 of tlic indiclinent (Anastacio hllal-tinsj and count 1 and 2 (fol- Don~ingos Goncalves), thc C'oul-t finds ihar the cl~aruc!ci.i:;ation ( ~ f tl-IL' acts 21s C I . ~ I ~ ~ C S azai~ist I~iim;l~lit)/ (Sec.5 LINT,4ET' Reg. 15!2ilOO) i?, ;!j~l~~.ulx-j:tc o ~ i he f':icts o f r l ~ e casc, since many co:-jci~~-;-i~ig e l c ~ i i c ~ ? ~ i illdis:~c tilat :iic ~nni-dcl-i (ctii-1111iit:cci 111. :41iastacio i'lai.~ins i i - I l4eta;oil x13cl Dol~ii~-iso Gii:?cal\rs ii-I I3i:I:il

.jIc~-n) a]-rd t!?e f'o;-cible ~ r a n i k r of pojsi!Iu~ion (by Donliilgo Go:ic~!I\~c;) i.i'~:-.~ ~21.: iif' ;!

.- I llcsc clcmc~its can be huilct. in thc ol>iuioii 01'1hc C'ot1i.t. ]lo\ o111\~ ill ~ l i e csccuiion c,l'c:icll c ~ - i ~ i ~ i ~ i ; ~ l act (the 1111-cc I I I L I I ~ ~ I . ~ 111 h , l c t : ~ s o ~ ~ 1 ) ~ ~ ,A11:1st:icio hll:~~-iiiis: the t111.c~ I ~ I L I I . C I C I . ~ ~ I I IILII\~I h.lci;i follo\\,cd hy Lvciblc dcpoi-tution by I > o l n i ~ i ~ o CioncaI\.cs) but also in tlic acii\!il!. alili circ~rmstai~ccs t l iu t i>~'cccdccl tlic czccu~ion iiscll:

111 tlic alicrmatli of tlie.~>ol>~~l:i~- consultntion of August 1909, :I meeting \"as held o n the 7"" 01' S c p t e ~ ~ ~ b c r i l l tlic main sclu:ue of Uazartete. Directions \\lcrc given ("Buku Mcra 311~1

Laurcma :II-c tlie strongholds of Falclitil") and ol-dcl-s were p1-onou~~ccd as if li~tal \!el-tlicts ("we have to go there and assault the Falcntil ~ u ~ d if not there -the 1;:ilentil- we ltill people"). The csccution of thcsc ordcrr followed: Sew days aStcr the ~nccting, sc\ic~-al \/illages of tlic district of Baznrtetc \vcl-c I-aitlt:d which rcsultcd in executions, dcstn~ction and dcport:ltion.

Anaslaclo Martins and Domingo Cioncalves attendccl t l ~ c meeting v,/hcrc m~li t ia lcadei-s plnnncd lcilllngs 2nd raids 111 tlic area. 11 is \vorth noticlng that the o ~ d c r was gc~~el.ic, 111 th:lt 11

d ~ d ilot rcfcr to any specific victim. The choicc of tlie victi~iis was n ~ a d c on the spot, li)~ graL~~itous reasons. Both in tlic case of the Itill~ngs in Metagou (count 1 agrunst Mlu-t~ns) ancl in the case of those in Bul\u Mcra (count 1 against Goncalvcs) the selection of the \ / ~ c t ~ m s was made at random, ~ I - ~ I I I ainongst the villagers present at that moment: thc victims wcrc ci~lled for having pictul-es of );analla G i~s~ i i ao or 011 the basis of the assumption tllat they I'cd independence fighters. These were obviously ma-c prctexts but they were sufficient to mabe a target out of a man. This random choicc, t h ~ s sort of Russian I-oulettc in which the final destiny of mcn is decided ~ 1 1 1 110 hcaviel- evidence of their 'sins' than being fbund in posscss~on of a pictul-c of a political leader or a scntence 011 Sccding I;alcnt~l (.lo]-gc Goncalves: "My father was ~ t ~ l l shal<iilg hands with one of tlic Indonesian TNI. The TNI sald to i ~ i y iittlicr: 'old ma11 you ~vi l l not die in this time'; ... in this tinie Vito aiid Dolllingo Goncalvcs informed Ihc TNI that my fathcl- fed Falent11 so ~ i o need to sliakc 1ia11ds wit11 hlm A i d tlicn they pushed against my father and the TNI shot my fatlies fi-on1 thc back...") dcpicts a disrespect and indiffcrcnce oS1iuman life which contributes to thc Sind~ng that such acts Pormed part o f a widel- scheme or of an attack.

Incleed, the talget was the people, tlic villagers, who had choscn to SLIPI)OI-L independence. They \vcre punisl~ed through the cxccution of represciitativcs, taltcn from among thcn~ at random. In thesc conditions, the modality of execution of the plan is an ospl-cssion of the will or of tlie intention of the participants, who are conscious, before beginning the action, of participating in a 111ission whose outcollle c o ~ ~ l d and probably will be deadly. W1wt may be doub t f~~ l , at the onset o r the action, is tlie measure; the size of the massacl-e that i n the villages that are going to be visited will occur. I-iowcvcr there is no uncel-tainty \\lit11 ~.cspect to the destl-uctive and murdel-ous pul-pose of the raid itself. 11 was clear, bccausc it was predicated and planned, that t.iose expeditions cvei-e aimed to punish the Falcntil s~~ppol-tcrs, burning houses and killing people, and, by adhering 01- participating to t l~osc espeditioi~s, 111e accuseci accepted the c o l ~ ~ n ~ i s s i o n of the murders and tile destl-uction (if tile l ~ o ~ ~ s c s nncl the dc1~ort:ilion oi'peoplc.

i ~ ~ i l i l i ; ! S S O L I ~ . i l l 1 1 1 1 . ) ~ ~ L ~ I ~ - C \ I I I I S ( : I I I C C > . IS ~ I O \ I-C\C\. ; : I II 111 \ ~ i i i ~ s ~ \ i . . h11t :IS :\ p ~ i n o l .~ \ lc I\ \ ; O \ L ~ , :I I ~ I O I / , I ~ C , . ;I cog 111 :I ~ l l : ~ c l ~ i ~ l ~ r ! ; \\.11icIi li~icls 111 its oii.11 \\.:ly 01. : ~c t i~ ig tl;c I .C; ISOI~ 01. its l;)~.ce. \ \ ' I I L I ~ is nplx~llii~g is ~ l i c tolal ~ ~ h s c ~ ~ c c 0 1 ' ~>ossihiiity 01' rcactioil li.o~n the \.ic.tiii~s. lai-gel!, r~\.c~.\\~licln~ccl h y ~ h c I I L I I I I ~ C S oc thc r~g~l .csso~-s. c.;poscd to thc r:licls \\;it11 n o otlic~. I . C ~ O I . S ~

tlian to llcc. so1iicti111cs c.oml>~:llcti \\,ail. conscio~is rllat this could bc tlicii- \ . t i - ) ; I;I..;I ti;^),. iii

t l ~ c ill~ision of pl-csc~-\;iilg t1ic.i:- house or tlicil- ca~t lc or ~l icir animals by Il~cir pl.cscncc. 11 \\,:ls o1ic11 a 13oo1- illusio~i: at tile end, n u n y \\.cl-e to laosc housc and animals and lil'c. The Ilct;.~lsc Counsel, \\:it11 3 ZC:II 11131 \ \ J O I I I C ~ deser\~e ;I bettc~. C:ILISC, nsl;ed scvcl-a1 timcs: "it' you Iinc\v tlicy \vc~.e c o ~ n i ~ i g , \vhy didn't you escupc?", only to rccci\~c horn the \\litncss thc most natural ans\\lel- (pg.617, licaring 18.0.03): "I callcd him (Ihc victim) - hc didn't want" - and lie \vaitcd to bc I<illed. Tlicsc bcing passive \lictims, the ricccpt:incc, in a to pl;lcc ono's own dcstiny in tlic hands of a merciless aggressor, is I-cvcaling: those vill:lgers, like animals b~-oi~giit to the s l ~ ~ ~ ~ g l ~ t c r l i o ~ ~ ~ c , could smell that tlicir Fate was close to thc end but most or them I-cfi~sccl ol- WCI-e ~111:lbIc to react, as in a riti~:ll oftil-cdncss which m:llics any possiblc reaction only a postponc~iient of the incluctable.

Like thc 1-11-isoncl- Pablo Ibbicta in lean Paul Sartrc's Lc nlurc, at the clossroad of his life, they couldn't see a hopc for t l~cir I~fc , beyond that day. And, consequcni.ly, they I-cnounccd to Ihc iight or tile flight, and they sun-cndcl.ed. The dcpl-i\lation of hope, o r tllc light in one's liSc, is the dchumanizatio~i that makes, oftlie victim, a thing.

Tlic ]-aids wcrc cxpectcd. They wcsc sprcad all over tlic distl-ict, thc pop~.ilation of Ihc district was under tlic ison fist of tlic militia that g~-ippcd tlie al-ca Sor d:~ys, !.ringing pcoplc, as if' humanity was at its disposal, SI-om one part of tlie country to the other. Thc dcporlation of people and the concentl-ation of them in Licluica, fi-om wliel-c they were dl<. . :;:-wril-ded to Atambua, illustl-ates that thcre was an 01-iginal plan of punishment and dispersion 1vI-iic11 embl-accd all the el-iininal activity of the iililitia in thc days fi)llowing the pol~ular consultation of tlic end of August 1909.

In these conditions the contributio~z of tllc ~ud~vidual to thc action of tlic group consolidates and slrengthci~ tlle capacity of thc gro~ip to stl-iltc. For this vci-y reason tlie two accused must bear tlic I-esponsibillty not only for thc crimes which they were actually sccn, by witncsscs, to commit, but also for the other murders (and for the deportation, for Doii~ingos Goncalvcs) which were committed, respectivcly, in tlie course of the attack against tllc village o f Metago~i and against the village of Bul<u Mera. Accol-ding to the gcne~-al PI-inciples on shared GI-iminal I-csponsibili~y, tliat find espl~ci t pro\ l~sio~i 111 sect~oil 14.3 of UNTAET Rcgulat~on 200011 5

"In accordance with the 1-11-cscnt regulation, a pel-son shall be crimitlally I-esponsiblc and liable for p~~n i shmcn t for a crime within the jul-isdiction oftlie pa~icls if that person:

. . . .( d j in any other way contributes to tlie commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a col~i~i ion purpose. S u c l ~ con~ribution shall bc iii~cntiol~al and shall either:

( i ) hc made \vith tlie aim of Su~ui-~l~e~.ing lie CI-iminal aclivity 01- ci-iininal pili-ji~ic of 111c ~ I - ~ L I P : \ \ l ~ c ~ - e :cucli zcti\,ily oi- I ~ L I I - j ~ o i e i;-~\rol\~zs ihc coinmissio:i ;I ~i-i!ilc

. .

\ : . i ~ l ) i i ~ lie j~ir~sdiclion c~i ' ihe ~;anels, or i i i j b,: i i ~ a ( i ~ I!] 111r i;no\i,lcdge o f 111e i11:en;io11 o f ~ i l e : ! -OL:~ to col:imil \!IC crji;ic

'rllc I I ~ ; \ ~ c I - ~ ; I \ o r objccli\c ~ 1 ~ 1 l i ~ i i 1 , 01- '/L,//!.Y /.c3/i.J'. \ \ , i l l I I C ;I c o o l ~ c i ~ ; ~ ~ i \ ~ c I I C I I ; I \ iol.. 01. ;I!]\

sigiiilici~i~cc ~111cf 110t I I I C I Y ~ ) , l?,.~ssi\.c. \\,liicl~. l>\~ :~di\csio~i to tlic ;1ctio11 01. 1 1 1 ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ i p . ci\,cs ;I c'o~itsil,~ltion to lllc acl~ic\~cillcnt ol ' t l~c conlinoll aim: in 111~: sl~cc.il?c cases. tllc p i - c sc~~~ .c r1nLl t l ~ c p;~~-t ici l~al ion, h y t l ~ c accused. ill t l ~ c csccution at 1c;lst o1';1 I I : I ~ . ~ 01'111~ ~ I I ; ~ I I O(-l.;lid ; ~ n d ~nul-clcl-s. s ~ ~ . L ' I I ~ ~ I ~ c I ~ c ~ llie ~1cteri~iinati011 o r tllc SI-()LIP, 2i\.i11g I I I O I . ; ~ ~ sl~l>pol.t to tllc \ \ , i l l ;tnd dctcl-min:~tio~i of ' the othc;. participni~ts to tlic action. Thc &ct that the t\\/o ~ ~ c c u s c d dicl somcthing spccific in thc course oftlic action -by stabbing or chopping somc 01' thc victi~ns or, in tlic case o f A11:lstacio Martins, giving 01-dcrs- disting~~isllcs t11ci1 contl.il)~ltion in comparison v\~ith the simplc pi-escncc of ollicr militia members \~~liicll \~e l -c on tllc spot bllt hr~vc not been proscc~~tcd So:. their mcrcly passivc rolc (c.g. .lose Comcz, AI-mcndo (la Concccau, Ansclrno Da Silva). On thcse prcmiscs, the multil~licity of ~iiusdcrs and othcr crimes (deportation, in tliis case) is merged in a ~ ~ n i t y were the identity of tllc si~iglc crinie is lost and the participrlnts bear the burden of the whole. In thc cnd, it was a single, yet ~iii~ltifacctcd, action and those who gave a contribution to i t are responsible not for the single cleincnt that they dil-cclly committcd b11t for its' cntil-cty.

On tlie mental clement o f thc action, 01. 11ic~11.s /*err, ~t is sul'licicnt it to say that the 11lte11t1oil to p;u-tic~jxtc can l ia~dly be placed in doubt, glven tlie land of action committed by the accused. Similarly, "thc l<nowledge of the intention of the ~ I . O L I P to commit a crime" (14.3 of UNTAET Regulation 2000115) is undisputable, i T also it talws the shade of a c1olrr.s i~~rlclcr-~i?irzuft~.r (which is still an el-tiphany of clolus cli12ectus) w11e1-e the intcntion inc l~~dcs tlic optir)n of a limited b ~ ~ t not dctermilicd number of possibilitics. Liltc the will o r the su ic~dc bomvc!- -, ;f the tci-1-orist who puts a born11 in a crowded placc in order to I-each a nuinbcr of victiiils w h ~ c h cannot be predetermined and \vhicIi can rangc fi-om nonc to 111nny, the intcntion of thc m~ll t ia mcmbcl-, at the onset of the action, covercd an opcn rangc of options. Of coursc, this does not 131-csunlc 311 ~~nl imi ted acccptailce of an uuli~iiitcd number- of k~llings nor (unl~lte tlie tcl-I-01-ist or t11= suicide bomber In the e);ampIcs given before) was it the l?u~-posc o f each mililia mcrnbc:r to reach the highest possjblc numbcr of deaths; nonctliclcss the intcntion was clear and thc adhesion to thc plans so clearly outlined in thc meeting of 2"" September implies the dctcr~iiiiiation or acceptance of tlic illevilable rcsults.

Addressing thc issue of the knowledge of the attack, i t is noticeable that, when the ~ ~ ~ i l i t i a leaders planned the attaclts after the referendum, they were meant as retaliation against the polIulation of those \rillages that had granted support and shelter lo ii~dcpeiidcnce suppoi-LC{-s and campaigners. They \vcre acts of sevcnge that could be mandated in generic terms, and, for this, conceived as a part of a systenlatic attack, leaving the same choice of thc target and the execution of tlic mandate to other militia leaders or subordinates. The attaclis o n villages were pla~nned without clioicc of illdividual target because, at that time, after the consultation, the intention was not S O mucli to wealcen the resistance of campaigners by 1;illing tlie heads of P I -0 - i~~dcpe~~dence organizations or retaliating against the families of the figiltcl-s, l ~ u t lo

punish the populations o r the villages that had sho\<?n suppol-t to indepcndcncc.

'The s:inic \:a!, i l l \\.Iiich the taiil; \<,:is cxccutetl tclls 11s soilie~lling al>oiit tile cj~l:ilr!'ic::tioi~ of ' ,

~ i l c CI-ilncs :111d the Icnoii ledge that [lie 1~illi1-tgi :.T,,cl.e ]jot isolu~cd. bcing iiiicl-~c.tI i i r :! i7. I:IC:- contc:.;t. 7 '11~ i i ~ o d ~ i l i ~ i c i of 11-le attacl; r o I ~ ; C \.ill::gilb. \\.itli 11lc i ; j ~ i ~ i i - i ! ~ ~ ~ i ~ j?i.e.<ci;cC ci:' o \ ~ c : - i ~ ~ l ~ e l : ~ ~ i i i ~ mili~i:: hi-zes. on onc 1;~~:ici. ill~~s:~-rlle t h c n~~n:Si.!- (I!' pro-;:utono;-::;' !;.~i;;:r.- l ] ~ \ ~ o ] \ ~ d j11 l.hc 0]~~:1~~:1~011. ~ll~ol;j~~:!li~;]c \ l , , i ~ ! > ;I +:l!~!!~~>!l 01. OCC:!$~O!-I::] ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! l . ()!-I (~ij;:i-

\-or t l ~ c nho\~c~nentiol)ed I-ousons. the accuscd 21-c cl-ilninally responsible Sol- tllc cl.irnc 0 1 ' mul-clcl-s and cicl>o~.tatioii as crime against humanity, in violation of Scction ; . ' I . Ict~cl-s 11) a ~ l t l

cl) Of UNTAET Rcg. 2000115'. More pl.cciscly, the descri],tion of tlic murders as cl.imcs ~1g:iinst Ilulnanitp is not cxliau,iti\c. A I'LII-~IICI. qi~alific;ltioli is nccdcd: t l~osc mul-dc~.s S r ~ l l in Section 338 of tlic Indonesia11 Penal Code (IPC) because arc killings without 111-c~ncditatio~i. Tliis I';uncl, in a rcccnt case (the trial n.9/2002, PI-o.secl(lo~- 1.j.s Ccr~.lo.s Sncll-es a.li.li. CIIII.IIILIII), had the oppo~-tunity to scl-utinize the issuc and to state, in tlie inter-locuto~-y clccision ol' 14/8/2003, that, dcspitc the el-I-oncous English transl:ltion of Scctions 338 a n d 340 of thc IPC:, both thc Sections just mcnt.~oncd include acts which could bc dcscribcd as mul-dcr. Specifically, Section 340 describes mul-dcr with p~-cmcditation whilc Section 338 includes (vo1unta1-y manslauglitcr and) intentional m~irdcr without premeditation. 'I'liei-e's no reason to comc again to tliis issuc since tliis Panel malce:; cxprcss refcrcncc to tlic intcrloct~to~-y decision mentioned above.

On count 3 of the indictment, tlie Court thiiilts that thc murder of Celestino Col-cia fL~lls beyond the jul-isdictlon of the Special Pa~icls s i~ icc it doesn't attain the qualificat~on ofcrimc against 1iumanit)r. In othcr words, while Ilic Court has 120 doubt t11at tlie mu]-dcr toolc place i l l

Atan~bua and that the coautl~or of it was Anastacio Martins (as previously stat,cd, the testimony of the son of the accused, prcsent dui-ing all the course of thc puniti\re action, is too clear and too detailed to he I-cfuted 01- cluestioned, while the ad~iiission of guilt by thc accuscd himself con-obol-ales and s~i17l~oi-t~ the charge), the Coui-t can not acccl~t the clualification of the murder as a part oTa systci~iatic or widespread attack, as i l s s ~ ~ l i ~ c d by the Prosecutor.

The reason and the motive of the crime are clearly stated by tlie son and tllc wife of tlic victim, PI-csent at the c r i ~ u e scene when the ~iiui-dcr tool< place: they refer tllat tlic killing ol' the eldcl.ly Cclcstino Con-eia came as an act of I-evcnge by a group of militia men for the wound iliflicted by Col-I-cia on ;~nothcr militia meniber (and son of one of thc a~~cngcl-s) in thc coursc of a ]-ow. It was a reactioli which followed lialf an hour after thc prclirninal.y action. It was a bi-~~tal revenge, which tool< place in the context of a I-efugee camp, undcr the contl-01 of' t l ~ e militia gl-oup, in the immediate aftel-math of the deportation (thc \/ictim and his fi~iliily had been in Atalllbua foi- a weel<). Flowevc~. it was not at all an element of a widcr plan, much less a bit of a \videspread or systematic attack. The situation follo\vcd whilc the dej701tation was surely still in place and constituted tlie sce~~al- io of the murder, b ~ ~ t it had, in tl-uth, nothing to do with the reason of the crime. In other words, taken for g1-rlntcd that tllc atracl; M ~ S still ongoing (the Court accepts the notion of including the detention 01- the limitation of frecdom of the displaced people in the concept of attacli: as a pal-t -the ~c1-y I~ist part- of il , fol tlie I-CLISOII hat the displaced people were not TI-ec to Icaije the ca113pi end gi) ixicl; to East Tilnol-), a t 1 1 1 o t I.: coi~ld bc talicli as a sul-i-oi~nding circurni~~~iici . . b ~ : 1 i?c;,cl- ;::I

P 1 .

clcnlc.i~l,of'a si~ppohcil el-imc i!;;;linst I I L I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ . s i i~cc tlic ~nul-dcr \:#::s i~-iggc:-cc! :::icl ! < , ~ l : : ( i I::-.

J L ! < I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I O I I i i 2 lie I T \ c;igc, !-lo\\, cotild i t i ' o ; ~ ~ C I . ~ I ~ I C a g a i : ~ s ~ IIL:I~;;~II~:;; ir tl-lc~-c'\ I - ~ O rcl:![i:::~ . . . ,- 7 .

/:!ji3~t i':.0111 "?c L t . ~ ( , : i t ~ ~ t ~ : : . l j t . ; , j hei\\.ccn the el-ime 2nd \ ! ~ e a~i:;ck., i!'\!ic !nu;-u:r c i c i ~ : . : ~ : ;,:]I: i t -

root ]lor iis c ~ C ~ ~ : l 5 i c ) i l ill t l i i ' ~ \ c ~ l l ( i c l u ~ l ' i l l c \\l;111 ol';i11;1~\; 01. 111 llic ! I ~ C C \ 1c) \ ) I - I I I ~ 1 1 ic ) I'ill-ij;c~- L ~ O I ~ S ~ C ~ ~ I L * I I L C ~ ' ? .1.11~ si11gIc I I I L I I R I C I . I ~ I L I S ~ 1.01.111 I>:III OS :I \ \~ i~ lcs~~~-c ; ic \ 01- <>,>tc!1\:i\ii :1t1:1cii to l)c q i ~ : ~ I i ~ i c ~ l :IS C I . ~ I I ~ C : I ~ : I I I I S ~ Iii1111:11iity: IJC 1 1 s ~ ~ c c i l i c ~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~-11:11111e(l :IS ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 01. l ~ c i t ~ O I - I I

s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t : i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ l y ill tllc C'C)[II.SC 0 1 ' L I ~ C \ ;111;1cli, i l 11111~1 ll~lii ill i t :I ~j~lsti1ic;itioli. :I i.cl;~~ioll : ~ i l i i 1 1 0 1

O I I I ! ~ all 1111sel:1tc~\ l ~ : ~ ] ~ ] ) c ~ l i ~ i g .

%lissing the ncsus bct\\lccn ~ l i c : attack and the crimc, tile crinlc is a simple 111urllc1- (acco~.cling to Section S of'IJNTAE1' IZeg.1?000/1 5 and Scctioll 338 ol'thc II'C'), \\:hich cot~ld Sa11 \vi~llin the Jurisdiction of thc Spcci~ll Panels (if Illc murdcr is commiltcd bet\\/ccn l,'liOO ailcl 25110109) only it'thc cl-imc wc1-c committed in the tcl-ritol-y of East Timol-. In Sact, ptrl-su;~nt to Section 2 oL' UNTAET I?cgulation 2000115 thc uni\~crsnl Jul-isdiction o P the Special I'allcl (i.c., jul-isdiction il-rcspecti\/c of ten-itorial location o r thc crime or citizcnsllip of \ziclim or ~~ul l lor ) doesn't extend to mul-dcr aiid to SCXLI ; I I ~ S ~ C I I C C S , being li~nitcd to the crimcs of' guiocidc, \V:II- crimes, crimcs against humanity and tortirre.

Since the crimc was corn111ii.tcd in A t a m h a , West Timor, llie Sl>ecinl l'ancls lln\ie no tcn-itol-ial J~~r isd ic t ion and hereby decline lhcir jurisdiction on thc casc of mul-clc~- listed under count 3 against Anast~tcio Martins.

Tlic cietcmiination of thc ter~ir of tmprisonrnent is radic.:!lly difrcrcnt k)l- thc two accuscd, according to tile dirfcl-cnt PI-oc~:dural stratcgy choscn by the two.

According to Sec. 10.1 (a) of UNTAET Reg.2000115, foi- the crinies I-efen-cd to In Scct. 5 of the same regulation, in dctcrnlining the tclms of i~nprisonmcnt for those cnmcs, the 1':lnel shall hnvc recourse to the general 131-actice I-egarding 131-ison sentc~iccs in the courts of East Timor and ~rndcr the inter~~ational 11-ibunals. Moreover, in iiiil?osing the scntcnccs, the Pancl shall take into account such factors as the gravity of the offcncc a ~ l d the ~nclividual circurnstanccs of the convicted pel-son (Sect. 10.2).

Thc rclc\la~it dlscl-ction lcrt lo tllc judge in imposing tlic scntcnccs (ranging from Ihc min~murn to 25 ycars of ili11)risonmcnt) is tcmpercd by thc nccd to Sollow the gcnci-a1 PI-acticc of t l ~ c courts in East T1113or and U I I ~ C I - the inte~national ti-ibunals.

For Auastaclo Martins, the Public Prosecutor and the Dcfcnse suggested 111 the joint statcincnt that the accuscd be given a penalty ranging from 8 to 12 years.

An examination of preirious dccisiolls issued by the Special I'anels in a n a l o g o ~ ~ s cases sIlon1s a clcai- 11-end, established li-om the \!el-y beginning of the activity o f thc COLII?.

'\4'11cn thc accused plcuds guil!y, tlic C'OLII-~ lias sho~vn a markedly Icnicnt approacll: in tllc fc\\, cases roi- mill-dcr 11-catcd i l l this \\,ay ( t l i~ ' Joao I-~l.~i;ll~dez case: t I 1 ~ A L I ~ L I S L O (10:; S L ~ J I ~ O A ca:;e, the \lascou~-ious cle Dcus: casc and the Quelo h4aano casej tile I'a~icl 11a: t::i:cn 1 ; - I

coniicl~i-:tion 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ . I ! , I - ~ L I I I ~ I ~ LO :;I.IO\?. ii \ I C ~ C C I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ J I I I I . O ~ C ~ I 10 t l l i j ; ~ ?: I ] ( , : d~;;i!iiiit;.ii;ji.!g I-f,(; . ,-I.cI. c!i~.-;c :i pl-:~cd~i~-:!l r ) p ~ i ~ l : i \.,,iiicli si;s:-cs l i n~o and I-CS(JLI;-; .~S oi'111c C::)L:I-t. -

111 t l ~ c ~i~;~.jo~-it!, O I . I I ~ O ~ C ~ I I l c ~ ~ l s!,stc111s tllc s u i l t ~ , 1 7 1 ~ ~ 1 . i l l ~ I ITCI .CI I I sl~;~l>ch ; I I I C \ 11 i l l ) (l~l'i.c~-c~)t lCat~11.c~. si\.i's t l i ~ ; I C C I I ~ C ~ \\ 10 I';ICCS ;I C I I ; I I - ~ C I I ~ L I ~ c~:l11110t 1 3 ~ ~113l l~11g~ ' i l 01- \11;11 \IC i>i. s l ~ c docs 1101 \\,:1111 to c I I : ~ I I c I ~ ~ c . the ~ ~ o s s i l ~ i l i l ~ ~ 10 sl1011c~1t tile t1.i:11 ; I I ~ C I LO ; I C C C I ~ ~ :I IJCII:II~!. I I ~ I I I I L ~ L ~ ~ : I ~ C ~ \ i~iiposcd 11y the j ~ ~ d g c . Tllc ~ I ~ ~ > ~ I ~ c I I ~ c o ~ ~ s c q ~ ~ e ~ ~ c e 1.01. tllc : I ~ \ . : I I I ~ : I ~ ~ S i l l ICI-1115 01. t i~i icsi~\ ing :111cl ~ I - o ~ ~ ~ L I ~ L I I s i i~ipliIic:~tio~~ is :I ~ - c I c \ ~ i ~ ~ i t I . C L I L I C I ~ ~ I I ol-111c 1~~11;lIty 11i1posccI i l . 1 1 1 ~ : ~cc~~sec i is I;)ulld g ~ i l t ) ; . So111ctimcs tlic Lnw or \lie Statute cstablisllcs t l ~ c ~ . c d ~ ~ c t i o ~ l ~.:lic, clcpri\,ing the j~ ldge ol'disirction on tlic issuc, but most 01'1imcs the L 1 \ ~ r is silent : I I ~ the judgc 01. the C ~ L I I - t a1.c left hce to asses the 1~c1131ty i l l relation to tllc casc 2nd its circumstnnccs; in thc 1 x 1 c\~c~il~~:lIily. tllc judge \ \ ? i l l bear in mind thc f i~i~ct ion and benefit 01' thc application of Ihc plca ol' guilt and \ \ f i l l gl.allt ;I tiiscrctionnry reduction 01' thc tcrm t l~at \VOLIICI l)c irnposccl il'the :~ccus,:d \\lcrc Toi~nd guilty at the end of the 11-i:11.

In the LISC of 3 d i s c~ -c t i~n of' his sol-1, this COLISL 11;~s I I S I I ; I I I ~ considc~-~cI that, in thc g ~ \ / c ~ , circu~nstances, to ~-cprescllt a11 advantage for the accuscd, tlic rcduction ol'thc tcrm \vh~cll wocllrl be otlle~-\~,r~sc ~mposcd at the end of thc 11111 trial must be a matcr~al onc, cutting arouncl 1l;llf of the tel-m. A less drastlc approach proved to be useless: aftel- thc first tlccision of thc Spcc~al Pancl, in thc Joao 1;crnnndcs cnsc, \\~llc~-c thc Court took a lcss Icnlc~lt decision, 111orc: than one year elapsed beforc a second gi~ilty pica was subn~ittcd.

111 the end, as Fdr as tllis issuc is concerned, the Court is inclined to considel- the plca of tllc acci~sed as tlic most important and o~ i ly relevant of the mitigating elemel~ts.

1~~11-lhei- elements in n~itigation, i l l i~ s t~ -a t~d by tlic Defknsc Lawyer, do not cmcrgc as ~ndclxmdcnt, conclusive I-casons for considc~ation since they don't appeal- to be mole than gclicric allegations usually introduced in the trials bcfoi-c thc Special I'ancls: tlic pool- cc) i~d~t io~i oi'tlic fa1:clmily o f thc accuscd, the illiteracy of them, thcir low rank ~u thc lnilitia, thc Ixcsence of sons aiid of casualties in the samc family o r thc accused ru-e all clcmcnts m ~ x c d ~ I I a I-equcst of i i~crcy that has i n its vagucness the reason for its wcaliness.

Thel-c is no nccd to prove all thc c~~cums tanccs alleged by the Defense Counsel about the ha1-ds11ip of the life of Anastacio Martins, cil-cumstances that arc rcasonablc and bcl~cvablc. 7'hc Pallel has no difficulty to bclicvc illat wl1~11 has been stated by Ms. Dimitnjevic in 1ic1- plead for ~nitigation, was ti-ue. I - lo~~cvcr , thosc cil-cumstanccs are not cnough to constitute an autonomous reason for ;a iul-thcr reductioli of the penalty.

The 31-gument used by the Defence Cou~lscl can easily be I-cbuttcd, noting for example, that illiteracy is common in East Tiiiior, so that it does not mcan much in itself nor it puts the illilerate in a condition of \veak:ness, and in second place that the humble backgi-ound has not prevented the accused ii-om an abusive and coercive exercise of power in the circumstances oS the execution of the crime. Thc low 1-anlt ill thc militia is, as well, not a conclusive al-gument, in first place because, ~vi th regard to Anastacio Martins, it is not coml3letely true (fi-om tile witnesses' statemenl:; emerges; on tlic contrary, the position of po\vcr or leztdersliij-, of Anastacio Martins, wlio, in the C ~ L I I - s c of the ]-aid to t l ~ c village to Mctagou, guI1e ol-dcl.~ to other militia mcn-rbcl-s (n.110 appeal-cd to be suhol-dinates) to tlig g~-a\)es 2nd pi-cpasc a fclicc; t l ~ c accuscd. 37 tllc ~ t l c i OS tlic 1.2i~l; tl11-cateiled t l ~ c vill:i~c~-s; these f i~nct iol~s rippcnr 10 Iic

. . i ~ - j c o ~ ~ i p : ~ t ~ l ~ l c \ ~ i t I i ~ L I ! - c I ! . C . X C : L I I O I ~ ~ L I ~ I - U I C J ;111(1 ~ I I 5c~Olld ~ ! ; I C C l>cc;i~!jc. I { :11:,o i t \ l s J c ; ' ~ l . : ~ ? .

, . 11 I S I I L I ~ L ! I I C ? C ~ [I;., the i '~~i- j ' L I I - I C ~ lcii~ici~y s I I O ~ ~ , !i i i i the C , ' ; ~ C L I ! ~ U ; I (I{ i ! ] ~ ci-il-!le>. ' , ' l ' l ~ : ~ ! .

. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I O I J ~ I I - ; ~ I C C I!?:: ~ ! l ( j > ~ CI.~~II ' :~>. t!lose ~noclali~ics \,,;C;-C 1.101 (II-L!J, co~ibi:io;~cd t;,, c > . c c L I ~ ~ ; I ~ ~ : . ~

~ .C;L!CILIS~-I~SS. [I-, [ I L ~ I C I . (~1x1,. ii-.!: Z C C L I ; : ~ ;a\.e ;i pci.io\-i:~l C ~ ; - ~ I : - ~ \ I L I ' ~ ~ O ~ I to ~ ' h c ~ ~ i ~ > ? i i - i d I LI::~~,,:?..

111 [lit c11d. [llc 1111-cc I N L I I . L I ~ I . S : ~ [ L I . ~ ~ L I L ~ L I to 1111:1ht:1cio ~ I : I I . I I I I S \ \ .CIT ~ I I X I I : I I L I C ~ S . c.\vc~~tccl \ \ . i i l ~

tlic I~isllcst ciisrcspcct 01' hu111a1i lifc. I 1 is i i~~possihlc to Sorgc~ Lllat onc ol'tllc' \ 8 i e t i ~ i ~ ~ i l l

h / l c ~ : ~ g o ~ ~ \\.:IS b111-icc1 \\,llilc still alive or that anotlicr \\*;IS 1;iIlcd :~l'tcr b c i n ~ bc~ttcn Ibr : \ l \ ~ ~ o s t O l l C 110111..

In thc absencc 01.3 ploil of'guilt, the csccution of a singlc murclcr 1il;e this \\lo~lld tlcscr\le :I

l~enalty of sistccn ycars, in Icccping \vith thc practices illustl.:~tcd above. l'hc ~iiultiplicity ol' the c r imin~~l acts, thougli mcl.ged in a tlnicluc action, iiiiposcs the application 01' Section 0 5 l~idoncsian Penal Code, on thc conJunction of punishable acts. Thc imposition of filrtllcl-, analogous, penaltics for the fi~rtlier ii1~11-ders would be limited by the legal ceiling o fonc tllil-cl

above the ~iiost scverc ~ ) i ~ ~ l i s I i ~ : ~ e ~ i t . Tlle Courl considers it approlxiatc to li~rthcr diminisli t l ~ c total punishmc~-it lo thc conviction of Lwcnty-thl-ce ycars imp-isonmcnt.

Thc I-cduction for the pl-ocedural shortcut elicited by tlic defendant who pled guilty, brings the penalty to clcvcn ycal-s and six montlls of imprisonment.

For Domingos Goncalves, who didn't plead guilty, tlie Dcfcnse Counsel involtcd, as ~iiitigatilig circumstances, the co~lditioiis of life of the accused, the hasdshij~ hc and his f:~ii~ily went through, his poor culrcnt conditioll and his low ranlc in the militia. While the ~~iisfortune faced by hi111 and by his family during 1999 call not bc accorded weight, for thc reason that tlicrc's no logical collilectioii bctwccii a 111isrort~111~ surfcred and n misdccd ;- 11?ted, ncvcr the less pl-opcr rcleval-ice inust be accorded to the I-ank of Do'mingos Goncalves in tlic militia and to currel~t difficulties faced by his family. Tllc first aspcct is in this case matcrial, since it is positivcly dcnionstratcd that the accused, u111iltc'~uastacio - -- -- Mallins, had a ~-ole that, if it was not merely ancillary, was ~ l o t surely of any I-elevance in thc c11ai1-i of comma~id of the militia group (the witness Mateus Dos Santos 011 D o ~ i i i ~ ~ g o s Goncalves: "He is like ii-0111 tlie people so lie just received ordcrs li-om Jacinto and Laurindo"); the second aspccl (the dire straits and the co~iditio~is of thc membel-s of liis fa~uily and of the accused lii l~~self) induces tlie Pallel to have mel-cy upon the accused. The accused has lost a Icg, cut by his ow11 wifc; his wife is mad; his children are young and his 111other is very old; the accusccl is unemployed. All those are sufficient grounds for a I-elcvant mitigatioli. Ilowevel-, s ~ ~ c l i mitigation can not attain the degree of one half gra~ltcd by the Special Panel in case of recourse to the procedul-a1 mcchanis~i~ provided by section 29 A of UNTAE'T Reg. 2000/30.

As in t l ~ e case of the co-accused, the execution of a single murder like those attributed to Doiilingos Goncalves would deserve a penalty of sixteen years, in lteeping wit11 the practices i1lust1-ated above. The multip1:city of the cl-iminal acts, though merged in a u~lique action, imposes the application of Section 65 Indonesia11 Penal Code, on the ~on~junct ion of puiiisl~able acts. The imj~osition of fll-ther, analogous, pellalties for the fil1-1her rn~1l.dc1.s \\~ould be limitcd by t l ~ c legal ceiling of onc thil-d above the most se\)el-e ~ ~ ~ t n i s h r n c : ~ ~ . The COLII-t considel-s it approp~-iate to f ~ ~ r t h e r diminis11 the total punishment to a con\;i~iion icii.

t\:.ent),-tl~ree Y C ; I ~ S i11lj)risonrnent. A tern1 of one yea]. is then i~~ lposcd for thc Isst crili1e ;i~l.i-jbutcd to ilie acc~iscd. tile depol-tation ofpo],~~lation fi-om BLII;LI Me]-a. In !lie ?lidi L ~ I C ~oi;ii of t \ i~e~~~)i-Soul- )'etil-s con\ ictjoll is I-cached.

'Tlic ordci or payncnt of ' thc cosls oS ~ h c pi-occdurc and tlic 01-t1c1- I>uI-suallt to Scctio~l 10.3 UNl'/Zl;1' Rcg. 15!2000, section 43.5 IINT/IL:.?' 12cg.30i2000 ~ ~ ~ n c t Section 33 ol' I~lilo~icsi:i~i I1cii:ll Codc (dcductio~i ol' p1.c-tl-ial dctcntion) ~u-c dct:lilcd in the iinal plirl o f tl)c pi.csc~lt decision, by la\\!.

I la~t i i~g considcrcd all.tlie evidence, and tlic arguments of the p:~rties. tllc Spcci:il i'allcl Sor Serious Crimes issues the follo\ving decision:

With rcspcct to the dclkntlant Anastacio I\/lartins, in I-clation to thc charges, :is I~sletl In thc indictmelit, the COLII-t establishes as follows:

Count 1) Tlie accuscd is found guilty of CI-imcs against humanity for tlic murdc~-s of Sacinto Dos Santos, Fi-ancisco Da Silva and Pcdl-o Alves, committed on 4"' Scptcmbcl- 1099, in Metagou Village, Sub District of 13azartcte, District of Liquica, as a part of a widcsprc:ld or systcinatic attack against a civilian population with l;no~vlcdgc of thc attack, l,ursur~iit to Section 5.1 leltcr (a) UNTAET Reg.2000115 and Scctioll 338 Indonesian Pcnal Code;

Count 2) The COLII-1 aclcnowledges the witlidl-awal by the Prosecutor of the chalgc of the murders of G~i i lhem~o Alvcs, Clemcntino Goncalvcs, Paulo Goncalves, o n tlie 7'" Septembei- 1990, i l T;1l1.l1 Mera Village, Sub District of Bazailete, District of Liquica, qualified as crimc against humanity;

Count 3) For the l<illing of C:clestino Coreia, con.1iiiitted on the 14"' September 1999 in Atambua, Wcst Tinlor, sub-ject to re-qualification of the fact as mui-dcr (Sec.338 Indonesian Pciial Codc) and not crirvle against humanity (Section 5.1 letter a UNTAET Rcg.2000/15) the Coui-t dcclincs lo excrcisc its jiu-isdiction, cx Scction 1 and 2 of UNTAET Reg.2000115;

Co~mt 4) Thc Caul-t acknowledges the withdrawal by the Prosecutor of the charge of deportation or forcible trnnsfc:r of population committed bctwee~i 5"' and lIL1' Septcm11c1- 1999 fi-om East Timor to Wcst Tinior, qualified as crime against h~umanity;

In punisl~ment of those cri11-.cs, the Special Panel sentences Anastacio Martins to 311

imlxisonment of eleven year:; and six months, considering all the murders conjuncted, applying Section 10 UNTAET Reg.2000115 and Section 65 ofthe Indoncsilin Penal Codc.

Coi~nt 7) Tlie accused is Sound guilty 01' thc ciiargc of Ihrciblc tl-;inskr of pol>ulution committcJ on the 7'" Scptcml-)cr I909 fl-om Buku Mcl-n, in Enst Timor, to Lllcst Timor, as a 1';1rt of ;I ~ v i d c s p r ~ ~ d or systclnatic attacli against thc civilirui population, qualillcd as CI-imc agni~ist Il~imanity pursu:lnt Scction 5.1 (ti) of UNTAET Reg.2000/15; SOI. ihc rcmuinin~ part of tlie cli~lrgc (dcj3o1-tntion OI- Sol-ciblc tr:unsl'e~- of population li-om h4ctagou unci I,cgu~nea to Wcst Tirnol-, from 5'" to 0'" 01- Scplcmbcr and fi-0111 x'" to I 1 ' " oi. Scptcmber) the accnscd is Sound not g~iilty;

In p ~ ~ ~ i i s h r n c ~ i t of' tliosc crimcs, the Spccial Pnncl scntcnces Domingos Goncalvcs to iun ~mp!-isonmcnt of iifteen ycal-s, considering 311 the crimcs c o ~ ~ j ~ ~ n c t c d , :~pl~lying Scction I0 of UNTAET Rcg. 2000115 and Sx l ion 65 of lndoncsian l'c~ial Codc.

Thc Court orders I. , kfcndants to pay the costs of tlic criminal pi-occdui-c.

Accord~ng to Scction 10.3 of 1J.IZ. 1512000, Scction 42.5 or U.R. 30/2000 and Article 33 or Indonesian Penal Codc, the Special Panel deducts tlic time s],ent in detention by Anastacio Maltins and Doimingos Goncalves due to oi-deis by East Timoresc C~LI I - t s . The accuscd Anastacio Martins was ai-rested and detained since 2 May 2000 to the dale of the decision (13 Novcn~bcr 2003). T1lerefo1-e lie was undel- detention for 3 ycars, 5 months and 28 days. Tlie accused D o i n i ~ ~ g o s Goncalves was al-rested on 26 January 2000. IIe was rclcased on 28 Fcbl-~~ai-y 2001. 1-112 was I-e-arrested on 10 May 2001 and I-e-releascd on 15 April 2003. T1ierefo1-c lie was ~ ~ n d c l - detent~oii for 3 years and 10 days.

Accordingly, pi-cvious d e t e n t i o ~ ~ shall be deducted fi-om the scntcnce today iniposed, togetlicr w ~ t h suc l~ a d d ~ t ~ o n a l timc he may serve pending the deternninat~on of any final appeal.

Thc Court takes this opportunity to notc that according to the '1'1-ison Inmates Calcu1:ltion Forni' of Anastacio Martins hl:ld ilt Gleno I'rison, he entereci into pi-e-trial detention on 1 I A n g ~ ~ s t 3000. Howe\w-, accol-ding to the case file of the Court, Anastacio Martins \:,as :il-I-cstcd and dctaincd fi.oni 2 !\lay 2000. Tlic C'OLII-t hcl-cby 01-c1c1-s L I ? ~ L tile '1'1.ison Inmates Calcul~itioi~ I - ~ I - I I ~ ' hi: ar1icndc:i 10 I-cflcct tl1;:1 Sac! 1hnl !lit pci-iod of pi-c-1;-ial cii.rcll~~<;n c i i '

. '~ . I -J ; !~I :LC~O 31 ~ I . : ~ I I S IW:L!IJ 011 2 h4 L:), 2O[JO,

']'he scntcnce shall hc cxcc111ccl immccii;~tcly. p~.o\.idcti [his ciisliositio~l as :i \\.:1l-I.LillI ol'a~.~'cst

Tlic final \\,sitten ilccision \\!ill hc issued in thc term of ~ \ ~ c n t y d:tys ;ind \ \ , i l l be 1"-o\'itlccl i l l

onc copy to the dci'cnd:ints iuid their legal rcprcscntati\'cs, pnhlic'prosccutor and to 111c prison managcr.

Tllc DcL~l se Co~rncil lia\!c t l ~ c right to filc a notice of a p ~ ~ c a l \vitlii~i I0 From thc day of thc notilic:ltion to thcm ol' thc (in:ll writtcn dccision and a \\!I-ittcn nppcul stalcmcnt \\fitllin the follo\;\~ing 30 days (Sect. 40.2 and 40.3 UR-2000/30).

'This Decision \vas rcn,dc~-cd 2nd duli\/cl-cd on the 13 No\/cmbcr 2003 in the building 01' tlic Court of Ajipcul of ~ i l i by

- i -- - - ~ ? - C Y ? - - - ~ : - ~

l~--u~.~------.. .. -- _ ludyc Dm-a ~ i i l - t i n De Mornis . .

.i 1 . . . _ \. . . . . ~

: , i . ...- , ,

. * . . , , , ./ Judge Antonio(1-leldcl- Viana do Carl110 ,--. . A - J -. . .. .,-..

i, ,I> . -

L .

Judge Pyanccsco Ploi-it, prcsidinp (-!, *7~:,,j>.k,,.;? (,,! l;'?..

(Donc in English and Baharz Liidonesia, tile ~ l !~ l i s l i tcxt bcing aut~i~~$lat ivb) ,.,. /

.,' ,d