Timor-Leste Ombudsman Report On State Actions Against Anti-Government Groups

Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice (Ombudsmans Office)
Public Report
From the Department of Monitoring and Advocacy
Regarding
State Actions in 10 Districts based on:
Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 4th March,
Government Resolution No. 8/2014 31st of March and,
Government Resolution No. 13/2014 7th of May.
With special focus on the PNTL and F-FDTL Joint Operations in the
District of Baucau
Table of Content
Contents
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Current Situation....................................................................................................................................... 5
Actions of Groups...................................................................................................................................... 6
State Confiscation of Illegal Uniforms....................................................................................................... 6
National Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 .................................................................................... 6
The Actions of the State PDHJ Response ........................................................................................... 7
Second Phase Issuing of Resolution No. 8/2014 by the Government ............................................... 7
Legal Basis: Standards, Principles, Potential Violations and Relevant Legislation........................................ 8
Mandate of the Provedoria of Human Rights and Justice ........................................................................ 8
Human Rights Standards, Violations and Relevant Legislation ................................................................ 9
Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Methodology............................................................................................................................................... 13
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Parliamentary and Government Resolution. .......................................................................................... 16
The PDHJs Perspective on the National Parliamentary Resolution ................................................... 16
The PDHJs Perspective on Government Resolution No. 08/2014 ..................................................... 17
Government Resolution No. 13/2014, 7th of May ............................................................................. 18
Results of Monitoring at the Grassroots ................................................................................................. 18
Baucau................................................................................................................................................. 18
Freedom from intimidation ........................................................................................................ 19
Freedom of opinion and of expression and the right to receive information and correct
information. ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Right to freedom of movement .................................................................................................. 29
Situation with the Detained in Baucau ....................................................................................... 32
The Right to Privacy .................................................................................................................... 33
Use of force proportional to the situation .................................................................................. 34
Viqueque (sub-district Uatalari and Uatocarbau) ............................................................................... 36

Aileu .................................................................................................................................................... 37
Ainaro .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Bobonaro............................................................................................................................................. 38
Covalima.............................................................................................................................................. 38
Ermera ................................................................................................................................................. 38
Manatuto (first monitoring in Manatuto and Baucau) ....................................................................... 39
Manufahi ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Oe-cusse .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Categories of Violations Occurring ............................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 43
Presidency of the Republic ..................................................................................................................... 43
National Parliament ................................................................................................................................ 43
RDTL Government ................................................................................................................................... 43
PNTL Institution....................................................................................................................................... 44
F-FDTL Institution .................................................................................................................................... 44
Public Ministry ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Implementation of Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 45
Annex: Questionnaire and Instructions for Questions. .............................................................................. 46
Questionnaire 1: For Authorities ............................................................................................................ 46
Questionnaire 2: For Beneficiaries.......................................................................................................... 52
Abbreviations
CRDTL
: Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
CPD-RDTL
: Popular Democratic Council-Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
PD
: Public Defenders Office
F-FDTL
: Falintil-Frza Defeza Timr-Leste
DNDH
: National Human Rights Directorate
DUDU
: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
GPGR
: Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic
ICCPR
: International Convention of Civil and Political Rights
CP
: Penal Code
CPP
: Criminal Procedures Code
KRM
: Maubere Revolutionary Council
MP
: Public Ministry
MJ
: Ministry of Justice
ODMA
: Monitoring and Advocacy Officer
PDHJ
: Provedor of Human Rights and Justice (Ombudsman)
RG
: Government Resolution
PN
: National Parliament
PNTL
: Polsia Nasionl Timor-Leste
RPN
: Resolution of the National Parliament
TAKLU
: Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
Introduction
In accordance with the Statutes of the Provedor of Human Rights and Justice, Law No. 7/2004, of
May 26th, (with amendments from Law No. 8/2009) the Provedoria of Human Rights and Justice has the
objective of preventing maladministration and protecting and promoting peoples individual and
collective human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the entire territory (article 8, paragraph
3). As well as this general objective, the Provedoria of Human Rights and Justice has the competency to
control the functioning of public authorities, particularly government organs and private entities in
accordance with their functions and public services and to conduct investigations of widespread and
systematic human rights violations and mal-administration (article 24, line a.), and to report to
government, the national parliament or other competent organs, in a consultative manner, opinions,
messages, proposals and reports regarding problems in relation to the promotion and protection of
human rights and good governance (article 24, line b.) and to conduct monitoring and reviews of
regulations, administrative orders, policies and practices in vigour (article 24, line d.).
Based on these competencies, the PDHJ determined to conduct monitoring concerning the
implementation of Parliamentary Resolution no. 4/2014 and also Government Resolution No. 8/2014. It
is important to clarify that the PDHJs monitoring was to examine human rights issues arising during the
implementation of these resolutions.
Current Situation
The principle issue of importance at present in Timor-Leste arises from the actions taken by the
PNTL and F-FDTL based on National Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, 4th of March 2014, and
strengthening further the role of the joint operation with Government Resolution No. 8/2014, 31st of
March 2014 and Government Resolution No. 13/2014 of 7th of May, 2014.
Resolution No. 4/2014 states that, as a result of their declared intention to suspend the RDTL
Constitution, bring down the current government and dissolve the National Parliament to conduct a
new general election, the groups including the Maubere Revolutionary Council (KRM) and the Popular
Council for the Defence of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (CPD-RDTL) and other groups are
illegal because of the specific violations of the law noted in Resolution No. 4/2014.
Observing the decision of the national parliament to declare the groups KRM, and CPD-RDTL and
other illegal groups inactive, several civil society groups protested to the National Parliaments claims
and notified them that, there was no relationship between the KRM and the CPD-RDTL. Therefore it is
not appropriate to blame one group because of the activities of another group.1 This holds special
relevance when one of the groups is paramilitary in nature, particularly in relation to its structure,
complete with military uniforms. Other commentators questioned the legality of the Governments own
1
Please see annex 2 Declaration from CPD-RDTL in response to Resolution No. 4/2014
actions saying that the Penal Code allows individuals to be found guilty of a specific crime but that the
actions of individual members does not allow the State to declare the entire group to be illegal.2 This
declaration also mentions the importance of freedom of expression and the fact that all citizens have
the right to establish groups and to express themselves in public.3
Actions of Groups
Despite this, we know that Sr. Paulino Gama, (also known as Mauk Moruk), leader of the KRM made
a press statement at the KRM Office in Fatuhada, Dili on the 15th of February 2014. During this press
statement, he expressed his unhappiness regarding the governments programs and progress in meeting
the minimum living standards for Timorese citizens. Gama then asked the President of the Republic to
dissolve the National Parliament, and hand over power to the KRM to govern for 6-12 months, while
new elections were organised.
At the same time, there were confirmed reports from civil society groups that members of the KRM,
particularly assembled in the sub-district of Laga, Baucau, had been mobilised in a paramilitary manner,
since at least October 20134. Members of KRM and Bua-Malus paraded using military uniforms and red
berets, and engaged in manoeuvres of a military nature in mountainous areas in the district of Baucau.
State Confiscation of Illegal Uniforms

As a result of these actions, the Government banned the use of military uniforms by non-members
of the F-FDTL and asked all paramilitary groups to hand in their uniforms and any arms in their
possession. Thus the PNTL conducted operations on the 4th of December 2013 in Suco Buruma, Baucau,
against the Bua-Malus group found to be lead by Commandant Labarik. This action was not able to
capture Commandant Labarik, though a total of 74 people were detained for less than one day and
then released without charges.
National Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014

Following Mauk Moruks press statement calling for the dissolution of the National Parliament and
the re-organisation of the State, the Government through the National Parliament, issued Resolution
No. 4/2014 considering the individual and collective actions of these groups. These groups were also
declared to be illegal because their members had committed offences against the following laws:
SOSIEDADE NIA DEKLARASAUN KONJUNTA kona-ba Operasaun Konjunta hosi PNTL - F-FDTL hodi Implementa Rezolusaun
Parlamentr N. 4/2014 no Rezolusaun hosi Konsellu Ministru sira N. 8/2014 neeb bele asesu liuhosi
http://www.laohamutuk.org/Justice/DeklarasaunCSOPNTLFFDTL22Abr2014te.pdf
3
Ibid Article 3
4
Please see Beluns final report on The Ultimatum to Illegal Groups on the 4th of April 2014 http://belun.tl/en/alert-ultimatum-on-illegal-groups-3-april-2014/
RDTL Constitution
Article 43 (Freedom of Association)
Article 146 (Armed Forces)
RDTL Penal Code
Article 188 (Criminal Association)
Article 194 (Abuse of Public Symbols and Uniforms)
Article 195 (Usurping of Function)
Article 202 (Violations against the Democratic Rule of Law)
Government Decree-Law No. 7/2004: Organic Structure of FALINTIL-Forsa Defeza Timor-Leste
Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 then demanded the illegal (banned) groups to cease their
activities as these activities were causing feelings of public insecurity. The resolution then asked the
government, the Public Ministry and the PNTL each to perform their duties, in line with their individual
competencies and take steps to prevent criminal actions.
The Actions of the State PDHJ Response

Between the 5th of March and the 1st of April PNTL responded to Parliamentary Resolution No.
4/2014, by making various arrests, closing down the CPD-RDTL offices, closing the KRM offices, and
removing CPD-RDTL members from State property throughout the entire territory. At that time the
PDHJ implemented urgent monitoring of actions by State actors, to record violations of human rights
and prevent any further actions of a systematic nature (please see part 2 below). The PDHJ also
commenced legal analysis of the actions of the National Parliament as they had demanded the PNTL to
take action against these groups without recourse to the Public Ministry. The PDHJ conducted
monitoring in the districts of Baucau, Ainaro, Manufahi, Aileu and Suai from the 5th to the 31st of March
2014.
Second Phase Issuing of Resolution No. 8/2014 by the Government

Then the National Parliament produced Resolution No. 4/2014 which empowered the PNTL in 13
districts to put a stop to the activities and movement of the CPD-RDTL, Maubere Revolutionary Council
(KRM) and other illegal groups, that were creating instability and threatening the State. However good
cooperation was not forthcoming from the illegal groups already identified, particularly in the district of
Baucau. Reality in the field showed that, many of the groups members had moved away and fled to
gather at Mount Matebian. Thus on the 3rd of April 2014, the Council of Ministers issued a further
Resolution, No. 8/2014 giving the role to PNTL and F-FDTL to conduct a joint operation to bring to a total
stop the activities of the CPD-RDTL and KRM groups. The joint operation based on the Resolution in
question only applied in two districts; Baucau and Viqueque. Based on the implementation of this
7
resolution, the PDHJ Department of Monitoring and Advocacy conducted monitoring to observe and
ensure the process of implementation did not give rise to violations by the joint force against the
community and these groups.
Based on the results of observations of the implementation of Resolution No. 4/2014 from the
National Parliament, it was shown that, there were unauthorised searches (no court ordered warrant) of
houses of members of CPD-RDTL, and several houses were destroyed in Covalima near the CPD-RDTL
Office. Some findings indicated that there was a lack of socialisation from the government through local
authorities to group members prior to the operation. This resulted in many people fleeing from their
homes to stay elsewhere.
Even so, there was a second operation, composed of the PNTL and F-FDTL institutions to capture
KRM and CPD-RDTL members who had been identified and had not handed themselves in. In analysis of
this fact, the PDHJ as the State institution that exists to guarantee the work of public entities does not
give rise to violations of human rights against members of the public, noted therefore a real need for
direct observations and interviews of group members about the joint operation of PNTL and F-FDTL.
In other aspects the PDHJ received information from NGOs about the joint operation giving rise to
human rights violations. There were allegations that these were committed by Security and Military
Forces in the area of the sub-district of Laga, Baucau. In order to provide evidence of this information,
there was a real need for the presence of the PDHJ in the area referred to in order to conduct
monitoring.
Legal Basis: Standards, Principles, Potential Violations and Relevant

Legislation
Mandate of the Provedoria of Human Rights and Justice
Refer also to the Statutes of the Provedoria of Human Rights and Justice, Law No. 7/2004, and its
articles which detail the mandate and role of the PDHJ as follows:
Art 24 regarding Oversight and Communications, (letters a and b) state that:

(a) to control the functioning of public authorities, particularly Government organs and private
entities in accordance with their duties in the delivery of public services and to be able to
conduct investigations of systematic and widespread human rights violations and maladministration.
(b) to report to the government, the national parliament or other competent entities, in a
consultative manner, opinions, communications, proposals and reports regarding problems
relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and good governance.
Art 30 regarding the duty to provide information to the public states that:
The PDHJ is required to provide information to citizens about their activities and the matters
within the Provedors mandate, and should be available to any persons who want to take this
information, report a complaint or request an explanation about the problems addressed.
Art 33 regarding the duty to work jointly with other entities (line 1) states that:
1. The PDHJ has the duty to maintain strong relationships with institutions such as State organs
and entities within Timor-Leste, to be able to accelerate common policies and practices, and to
build good working relationships.
Art 34 regarding the duty to submit reports (lines 2 and 3) states that:
1. When situations require, the PDHJ can decide to issue public information statements directly to
the public regarding its opinions, communications and reports in relation to specific cases and
its activities.
2. Any publicity issued by the PDHJ must be balanced, fair and correct.
Art. 35 regarding Initiatives states that:
The PDHJ undertakes its role in response to complaints or declarations reported by individuals or
groups and on its own initiative.
Article 8 of the PDHJs Organic Law, in referring to the Directorate for Human Rights, states:
e) Develop and implement monitoring activities regarding the actions of authorities, based on the
strategies identified in their areas of specialization;
f) Study and analyse national and international standards of human rights implementation;
g) Prepare opinions regarding laws and public policy and their compatibility with national and
international human rights standards;
h) Propose recommendations to prevent and to ensure accountability for violations and develop
and strengthen mechanisms for authorities to implement human rights;
i) Coordinate reports and publications in the area of human rights and submit reports to
international human rights bodies;5
The principle objective of monitoring activities is to identify systematic violations of human rights
with the intention of preventing further violations in the future. Monitoring activities also serve to
monitor the functioning of public authorities in providing services to meet the needs of the community
and in respect of individual human rights. By this means, the PDHJ can identify the causes that give rise
to violations. The Provedor has the legal duty to identify the causes that give rise to violations.
Human Rights Standards, Violations and Relevant Legislation

Based on Resolution No. 8/2014 and based on the activities seen by the PDHJ monitoring team
when conducting monitoring regarding Resolution No. 4/2014, the following standards from
international and domestic law are considered important:
Decree-Law No. 25/2011, Organic Law of the PDHJ, Art. 8 Sec. E-I.
Principle 1: Security All people have the right to personal security.6 This principle is included in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)7, the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights8 and the RDTL Constitution. The Criminal Code also includes many articles that refer to crimes
against personal freedom9, meaning that people will not be subjected to:
a. Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

PNTL, F-FDTL, Immigration officers, or Prison Guards, depending on their functions, can use force in
situations of legitimate defence (self-defence), article 28 (2) CRDTL, article 4 (1) Decree-Law n.
43/2011, 21st of September (Legal Regime on the Use of Force), when detaining (article 4 (1) Decree-law
n. 43/2011, 21st of September (Legal Regime on the Use of Force), to establish public order (article 9
and article 10 Decree-Law n. 43/2011, 21st of September (Legal Regime on the Use of Force), to
maintain order amongst detained or arrested persons (article 11 and article 12 Decree-Law n. 43/2011,
21st of September (Legal Regime on the Use of Force), or to defend others where there is illegal
aggression against physical integrity (article 4 (1) Decree-Law n. 43/2011, 21st of September (Legal
Regime on the Use of Force).
b. Arbitrary Detention
According to the Criminal Procedures Code (KPP), the objectives of detention are; a) to present a
person for summary judgement, or to bring an accused person before the court for the first judicial
cross-examination or to apply measures in accordance with a court decision (art. 217 (1) (a) KPP); or b)
to guarantee the detained persons presence before the court in accordance with court procedure (art.
217 (1)(b) KPP).
When found in flagrante delicto, they may be detained if the crime is punishable with a prison
sentence (art. 218 (1) KPP). In accordance with article 219 KPP, a crime is considered in flagrante
delicto when it is in the process of being or most recently committed. A crime is also considered to be
in flagrante delicto when having committed a crime, a person(s) or their agent is found to be in
possession of objects or indications that the crime has just been committed or of having participated in
the crime.
Article 30 RDTL Constitution, (Right to individual freedom, security and integrity).

1. All persons have the right to personal freedom, security and integrity.
2. No person can be unlawfully arrested nor imprisoned, and all detainees and prisoners must be brought before a
judge with the power for review within the legally determined timeframe.
3. All persons who have lost their libnerty must immiediately receive information about the reason for their
imprisonment, and while in prison have the right to health treatment, and permission to speak with legal counsel
or a trusted friend.
4. No person may be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment (TAKLU).
7
Article 3 UDHR All persons have the right to life, to freedom and to personal security.
8
Article 9, ICCPR
9
Criminal Code, Chapter III Crimes Against Personal Liberty include threats, coercion, serious coercion,
kidnapping, etc.
10
When not in flagrante delicto, there must normally be a court order from a judge (art. 220 (1) KPP).
However, even in the absence of an arrest warrant from a judge, the law provides for authorities to
make arrests (detentions).
Principle 2: Freedom from intimidation All persons have the right to be free from threats or
intimidation from any person or the State. The State must guarantee that all persons are able to live free
from intimidation. The RDTL Constitution10, Criminal Code11 and the ICCPR12 all mention this.
Principle 3: Freedom of opinion and expression - All persons have the right to express their opinions to
public entities, private groups, public groups and other persons. No person or group can prohibit them
from expressing their opinion or expressing themselves. The RDTL Constitution mentions in Article 40
the Right to Speak and to Information13 and the ICCPR mentions in Art. 19 and 20 the Freedom of
Expression. 14
Principle 4: Right to freedom of movement (circulation) All persons have the right to move freely
about their place and to conduct their daily activities, without impediment from any person, group and
the State. The State has an obligation to guarantee their freedom of movement and the conduct of their
10
In many articles in the Constitution that include freedom from intimidation. See: Art. 29, Right to Life, Art. 30
Individual rights to freedom, security and physical integrity, art. 40 Freedom of speech and to information, Art 42.
Freedom of meetings and to protest etc.
11
Article 157, Threats 1. Any person, who threatens another person with a crime to make them afraid or insecure
or to prejudice their freedom of self-determination shall be subject to a penalty of prison of up to two years of a
fine.
2. There must be a complaint in order for there to be a criminal proceedings.
Art. 170, Freedom to conducts meetings and to protest
12
Article 6 (1) ICCPR: "All persons have eht inherent right to life. This right is protected by law. No person may be
arbitrarily deprived of their right to life."
-Article 7 ICCPR: " Ema ida sei la bele hetan sujeisaun ba tortura, ka tratamentu no kastigu krul, dezumanu no
degradante. Liliu, ema ida sei la bele hetan sujeisaun ba esperimentasaun mdika ka sientfika, lah ninia
konsentimentu livre."
-Article 9(1) ICCPR: "All persons have the right to freedom and personal security. No person may be subjiected to
arbitrary imprisonment or detention. No person may have the liberty taken away except for reasons and through
procedures provided for in law."
-Article 17 ICCPR: (1) No persons my be subjected to arbitrary or illegal interference with the privacy, family, home
or correspondence, and also to illegal attacks on their honour and good name. (2) All persons have the right to
protection under law from any interference.
13. Article 40 RDTL Constitution 1. All persons have the right to freedom of speech and the right to obtain anby
information and to correct information. 2. Freedom of speech and to information may not be subject to any
limitations or censorship. 3. The law will regulate the rights and freedoms mentioned in this Article, on the basis of
the imperative of respect for the Constitution and respect for the dignity of citizens.
14 - Article 19 (1): ICCPR " Each person has the right to their own opinion without interference.
(2) ICCPR: "Each person has the right to freedom of expression, this right includes the freedom to seek, recieve
and provide information and different ideas, withotu boundary, oral, in writing or as artistic impressions or
through anby means they wish.
- Article 20 (2): ICCPR Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred which constitutes an incentive to
discrimination, hostility of violence is prohibited by law.
11
activities.15 16However the State has to identify the need to balance two priorities peoples right to
meet and protest and the need to guarantee public order.17
Principle 5: Right to privacy All persons have the right to privacy including of their home, possessions
and their private correspondence.18 The State or any person cannot enter a persons home without the
knowledge of the owner.19 If the police wish to enter a persons house they must have authorisation
from a court.20
Interference with a persons home in relation to a crime scene

Crime scenes are specifically regulated by the Criminal Procedures Code (KPP). Where a crime has
occurred, police agents or the Public Ministry (MP) may conduct a search of a persons home. The
search of a home is as a means to find evidence. A search of a home can be conducted when there is any
object that must be seized or any person that must be arrested (article 168 (2) KPP). In accordance with
the KPP, a distinction is made between searches conducted during daylight (from 06:00 AM to 08:00
PM) and searches conducted at night (from 08:00 PM to 06:00 AM).
During the day, it is sufficient to have a judicial dispatch or written consent from the home-owner to
conduct the search (article 169 (1) and article 171 (1) KPP). Even though there is no written consent
from the home-owner, nor dispatch from a judge, the police can conduct searches when there is
urgency or when any delay may give rise to danger (a situation when the police cannot wait or have no
other means to guarantee the protection of evidence) (article 169 (6) KPP). When in a situation relating
to terrorism, violent criminality or organised crime, searches can be conducted without court dispatch
or written consent from the home-owner if there is an order from the Public Ministry (based on strong
indications of an imminent crime, that constitutes a risk to peoples lives or physical integrity) (article 4
Decree-Law No. 4/2006, 1st of March (Special Regime for Criminal Proceedings for Cases of Terrorism,
Violent Criminality or Organised Crime).
At night, police agents or the Public Ministry can enter a persons home when there is written
consent from the owner (article 170 and article 171 (2) KPP). If there is no written consent from the
owner, the police of Public Ministry can enter a building when there is a major threat to the lives or
physical integrity of people inside the building (article 37 (3) CRDTL).
15
Article 12 (1): ICCPR "All legal persons in the State territory, while within the territory, have the right to freedom of
movement and the freedom to choose their residence."
(3) ICCPR: "The rights to expression above may not be subjected to any restrictions, except those determined by law
deemed to be necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or moral values or the rights and
freedoms of other people, and also consistent with the other rights enshrined in this Constitution
16
Article 170, Criminal Code, Freedom of Meetings and to Protest
17
Law No. 1/2006 Freedom of Meetings and to Protest
18
Article 185: Violation of Residence
19
Article 37 (No.2), CRDTL Entry into any persons home, against their wishes, can be done only with a written
order for a judicial authority with the power to do so, in accordance with the case and form set out in law.
20
Article 17 (No.1) ICCPR No person may be subjected to arbitrary interference with the privacy, family, home or
correspondence, and also to illegal attacks on the honour or good name
12
Objective
Based on the information received by the PDHJ from community members, civil society and from
monitoring activities, the PDHJ conducted monitoring of implementation of Parliamentary Resolution
No. 4/2014, Government Resolution No. 08/2014 and Government Resolution No. 13/2014 issued by
the National Parliament and the Government to security forces and the military to stop the activities of
the illegal groups. Thus the principle aims of the monitoring were:
1. Preventative Action: (i) Prevent PNTL members from using force in an illegal manner and prevent
PNTL entering houses or offices in an illegal manner. (ii) Analyse the Parliamentary and Government
Resolutions to determine if there was a legal basis for the States action.
2. Monitoring Action: (i) Observe the situation of the community to monitor whether they felt safe or
not. (ii) Observe actions of PNTL or F-FDTL members to identify if there was any intimidation against
the community.
3. Advocacy Action: (i) Collect data regarding the humanitarian situation specifically those families
impacted by the actions of PNTL or F-FDTL members. (ii) Send recommendations to the parliament
or State institutions regarding the direct impacts of the security situation and other relevant human
rights issues arising from the actions based on Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 and
Government Resolutions Nos. 8/2014 and 13/2014.
Following monitoring, recommendations were sent to public authorities to prevent future violations
and to guarantee that victims of actions are able to receive compensation or remedy.
Methodology
After Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 assigned the role to the PNTL to terminate the activities
of the CPD-RDTL, KRM and other groups identified as illegal, the PDHJ monitoring team travelled to the
districts to conduct monitoring and direct observations of the general situation at the location of
operations. The team, comprised of 6 people, commenced monitoring from the 18th of March 2014 until
the 25th of April 2014. During this time, the monitoring team conducted monitoring activities 9 times in
10 districts and 22 sub-districts. The means of gathering information used included; direct observations,
use of forms and interviews.
During monitoring activities the PDHJ interviewed 132 people, composed of 94 men and 41 women.
It is important to clarify that, when the PDHJ commenced monitoring of the implementation of
Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, the PDHJ monitoring team visited 10 districts. Once Government
Resolution No. 8/2014 was added, the PDHJ monitoring team focussed on conducting monitoring in
Baucau and Viquequein accordance with the mandates of the Resolution itself. The following graph
shows the number of interviews conducted by the PDHJ monitoring team.
13
Numbers of men and women interviewed

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
34
12
5
12
17
10
Mane
4
0
Feto
The PDHJ monitoring activities focused on 5 groups, including: local authorities, PNTL, CPD-RDTL,
KRM and other group members, detained persons and also community members impacted by the
actions of PNTL and F-FDTL. The PDHJ conducted interviews with community members that live close to
the CPD-RDTL, KRM and other groups residences. In reference to PNTL and other authorities, the PDHJ
conducted interviews based on their involvement in activities and actions undertaken by the State. The
authorities interviewed by the PDHJ included sub-district administrators, PNTL district commanders,
PNTL sub-district commanders, military authorities and suco and aldeia chiefs in those areas impacted
by PNTL and F-FDTL actions. The following graph shows monitoring of target groups interviewed by the
PDHJ team.
60
48
50
40
35
30
20
16
10
10
0
PNTL
Autoridades
CPD/Grupu
Seluk
Povu
Prizoneiru no
detidu
14
Monitoring activities were conducted in the districts, sub-districts and sucos where there was
identification of groups of CPD-RDTL, Bua Malus, KRM, Kristu Dudu La Ba, Forsa Defeza 75 and Forsa
Nakukun. The monitoring team chose these areas because the PNTL conducted actions against groups in
these areas and the communities living there experienced impacts from the activities of PNTL, F-FDTL
and other groups. The following table shows the geographical areas identified by the monitoring groups:
District
Sub District
Reason for visiting area
Cova Lima
1. Zumalai
2. Suai
3. Tilomar
1. CPD-RDTL, Bua Malus

Ainaro
1. Casa
2. Ainaro Vila
1. CPD-RDTL
2. Bua Malus, Frsa Defeza 75, CPD-RDTL
Baucau
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Manufahi
1. Manufahi Vila
2. Betanu
1. Bua Malus, CPD-RDTL

2. CPD-RDTL
Viqueque
1. Uatolari
2. Uatocarbao
1. CPD-RDTL
2. CPD-RDTL
Aileu
1. Aileu Vila
2. Likidoi
3. Remexio
1. Bua Malus, Kristu Dudu La Ba, Frsa

Nakukun, CPD-RDTL
2. Grupu Bua Malus
3. Grupu Bua Malus, Grupu Kristu Dudu La
Ba, Frsa Nakukun
Ermera
1. Ermera Vila
2. Letefho
3. Hatulia
1. CPD-RDTL
2. CPD-RDTL, Grupu Bua Malus
3. CPD-RDTL, Bua Malus (just two people)
Manatuto
1. Laclubar
1. Grupu CPD-RDTL
Baucau Vila
Laga
Quelaki
Baguia
CPD-RDTL, KRM and Bua Malus

CPD-RDTL, KRM
CPD-RDTL
CPD-RDTL and KRM
15
Analysis
Parliamentary and Government Resolution.
The National Parliament stated that, (i) it considers these illegal groups and their followers as not
just making various demands of a political nature, but also of making threats in concrete measures,
against the sovereign organs of the RDTL, whether or not the President of the Republic acted in
accordance with their demands or not. (ii) considers that, these threats represent coercion against the
Constitutional organs and include crimes against the State in accordance with that which is described by
the Law in article 202, of the Criminal Code. (iii) considers that in all their subversive manoeuvres, they
used military uniforms, in clear violation of articles 43s 43.n.3 and 146 of the Constitution, and of
other rules in vigour at the present time, particularly those foreseen in the F-FDTL Organic Law approved
by Decree-Law No. 7/2004, of the 5th of May in the National Security Law approved in Law No. 2/2010,
of the 21st of April and in the Penal Code. (iv) considers that, these illegal groups have the aim of
committing the crime of criminal association, where the law prohibits military formations and that this is
considered as the usurping of functions and that this threatens the subversion of constitutional order
against the security of the State, which is subject to imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of
the Timor-Leste Criminal Code, respectively in articles 188, 194 and 2012
The PDHJs Perspective on the National Parliamentary Resolution

For the reasons mentioned above, members of the National Parliament made legal qualification of
the facts and stated that the facts represent specific crimes. However according to the Criminal
Procedures Code (KPP) approved by Decree-Law No. 13/2005, on the 1st of December, entities with the
authority to determine whether or not the facts represent any crime, do not include the National
Parliament.
In order to determine whether the facts represent a crime requires a process of inquiry, which once
having met its objectives and with sufficient proof can produce an accusation that can be used to charge
an individual or group suspected of having committed a crime.21 According to the KPP, the entity with
the role of making indictments is the Public Ministry.22 According to article 236 of the Criminal
Procedures Code, which governs the issuing of indictments, if sufficient indications are found during an
inquiry to show that a crime has occurred and who has committed that crime, then the Public Ministry
issues an indictment.23 The indictment, in accordance with number 3 of article 236, must include the
21
Article 225 Criminal Procedures Code

Article 48 (2)D Criminal Procedures Code
23
Article 236 Criminal Procedures Code
1 When an equiry finds sufficient indication that a crime has been committed and by whom, the Public Ministry
issues an accusation (charges), within 15 days.
2 There are sufficient indications when these indications enable to the belief that the judgement will apply a
custodial sentence to the accused.
3 The indictment must include who and the existence of any invalidation:
a) Indications that identify the accused;
b) The facts that constitute the crme or have relevance to the sentencing or security measures;
c) The substantive norms (laws/statutes) that apply in the case;
22
16
facts that constitute the crime or that have relevance to the determination of the penalty or security
measures (line b.) and also the substantive norms that apply in the case (line c.). Thus, the dispatch of
the indictment represents the moment at which the Public Ministry makes its legal qualification
(evaluation of the facts). The result from the KPP is that the Public Ministry (followed by the court24) are
the entities that can issue legal determinations. It is not the role of the parliament to determine if an
individual or group is illegal or not, has been involved in a crime or not, nor to determine if the facts
represent a crime or otherwise.
Also, the PDHJ underlines that, the Constitution divides powers between the Parliament and the
Government, the President and the Courts. It is most important that one part does not try to take the
decision of another nor to interfere in the work of one of the other parts, which is to say, that it is
important to respect the separation of roles and powers between institutions. It is most important to
respect the power of the Public Ministry to conduct criminal actions (article 132-1 CRDTL) and the
power that arises from the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedures Code.
The text of the Resolution in question and also paragraph three of the Resolution which, demand
the organs and institutions of the Republic, particularly the Government, the Public Ministry and the
PNTL, based on their individual respective competencies, to take urgent measures foreseen in the
constitution and law regarding people conducting crimes, in order to restore the security and tranquillity
needed by citizens can be seen as constituting interference by the National Parliament in the
responsibilities of other authorities (powers).
The PDHJs Perspective on Government Resolution No. 08/2014

Article 35 number 2 of the National Security Law states that, engagement of the F-FDTL comes from
the joint decision of the Government and the President of the Republic, in his capacity as the Supreme
Commander of the Armed Forces, in accordance with special legislation relating to national defence25.
Even though there was consultation with the President of the Republic before taking the decision
about the joint operational engagement of the F-FDTL, the law requires that the decision comes from
the President of the Republic.
The PDHJ is also concerned with the justification of the joint operations engagement between the
PNTL and F-FDTL. According to the National Security Law, article 35-1, the presumption for engagement
d) Date and signature

24
According to Article 274, When it is deemed that the facts entered in the indictment require fuurther legal
evaluation, despite the new legal evaluation having a higher maximum penalty, the court informs the Public
Ministry and the Defence, and, if antone requests, provides a deadline for the preparation of a procedural
position.
25
Article 35-2 of the National Security Law says that: O empenhamento das F-FDTL decidido, em conjunto, pelo
Governo e pelo Presidente da Repblica, na qualidade de Comandante Supremo das Fras Armadas, nos termos
da legislao especial relativa Defesa Nacional.
17
is the insufficiency of capacity to act on the part of one entity26. It is important that the Government and
President of the Republic, when deciding to conduct a joint operation between entities, such as the
PNTL and F-FDTL, examine the need for joint engagement and based on their decision, conclude that,
the action of one force is not sufficient to respond to the situation.
Government Resolution No. 13/2014, 7th of May

Government Resolution No. 13/2014 decided to extend the active joint operational engagement
between F-FDTL and PNTL throughout the entire territory. Considering the analysis above regarding
article 35-1, of the National Security Law, the decision to extend an operation must be the result of a
conclusion that, the PNTLs effective capacity continues to be insufficient to conduct the operation on its
own. The PDHJ asks for attention to be given to the need for the decision to include justification of the
need to continue to involve the F-FDTL in the operation.
Results of Monitoring at the Grassroots

The monitoring team conducted monitoring and direct observations in the locations identified for
implementation of the resolutions. Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 applied to all districts in the
territory of Timor-Leste. Following this, Government Resolution No. 8/2014 applied to the 2 districts
with strong relationships with the CPD-RDTL and KRM groups being Baucau and Viqueque.27 The PDHJ
focused on 10 districts in Timor-Leste with the greatest presence of CPD-RDTL and KRM groups. The
following are the results of the monitoring:
Baucau
The PDHJ conducted monitoring activities three times in Baucau between the 19th of March and the
25th of April for a total of 12 days. During this time, the PDHJ visited four sub-districts, 10 sucos and 12
aldeias.28 The monitoring team interviewed 48 people in Baucau, 34 men, 17 women (see graph below).
The activities included interviews with PNTL, other authorities, CPD-RDTL members and also members of
the general community. The PDHJ used a questionnaire to conduct interviews regarding the impact of
the joint operations actions in the district of Baucau, because the monitoring team identified Baucau as
26
Article 35 -1: O empenhamento das F-FDTL decidido, em conjunto, pelo Governo e pelo Presidente da
Repblica, na qualidade de Comandante Supremo das Fras Armadas, nos termos da legislao especial relativa
Defesa Nacional
27
Government Resolution No. 8/2014 approving the continuation of the joint operation between PNTL and F-FDTL
in the sub-Districts of Laga, Suco Lalulai and Samaguia, sub-District Quelicai, suco Afasa, Baguia, Labalo, Wekubuti
and Namane, sub-Distritctu Baguia, Suco Samalari, Weibitae and Lavateri (Baucau) and sub-Distritu Watolari
(Viqueque)
28
Monitoring team visit to Suco Abu, Afaa, Guruza, Lalulai, Namanei, Sagadate, Samalari, Samalari Buibau, Soba
and Trilolo. The PDHJ visited the following aldeias: Boleha, Borelai, Daicou, Fap-up, Kareido, Lalulai, Lotu-motu,
Samalari, Selegua, Selulai, Trilolo and Uecobuti.
18
an area of risk.29 This questionnaire focused on five issues general security, freedom from intimidation,
freedom of association, freedom of opinion and of expression, and freedom of movement.30
Number of women and men

interviewed in Baucau
40
34
30
17
20
10
0
Mane
Feto
Freedom from intimidation

Based on Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, the PNTL had a duty to socialise to the community
the activities included in the resolution. Interviews with authorities in Baucau show that 100% of the
authorities shared information with the community about the resolution.31 The activities of the joint
operation conducted based on Resolution No. 8/2014 did not work together with local authorities to
share information with the community. The PNTL organised meetings with local authorities and
community leaders to inform them about Government Resolution No. 8/2014 however, according to
interviews the PDHJ conducted with several suco chiefs, in this meeting the PNTL did not explain the
actions in relation to Government Resolution No. 8/2014. Because of this reason the community in the
joint operational area experienced panic and fear when the joint operation commenced in their area.
Obliging people to provide information
The RDTL Constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens to personal freedom, security and physical
integrity.32 The Constitution also expressly prohibits persecution based on the individual beliefs, political
views, philosophy etc.33
29
Please refer to the questionnaire template in the annex.

The questionnaire made by the PDHJ does not reflect a respresentative survey The PDHJ monitoring was
urgent monitoring becauwse of the time limit was not sufficient to enable planing of a more in-depth survey. For
this reason the statistics in the report do not necessarily reflect the perspective of the entire community. However
they represent the views of those living near the joint operational areas.
31
Authorities include PNTL Station Commanders, Suco and Aldeia Chiefs.
32
RDTL Constitution, Article 30 Point 1-4 (Right to individual freedom, secuity and physical integrity)
33
RDTL Constitution Article 38 Point 3 (Protection of personal information) Digital alteration of information on the
basis of individual life, political convictions, philosophy, religion, political party affiliation or labour union and
ethinic original is specificall prohibited without permission from the owner of the information.
30
19
From monitoring activities, it was identified that 53% of respondents living in the operational area
felt intimidated by joint operation members obliging or pressuring the community to provide
information and facts that the community themselves did not know.
Box One: Incidents obliging (forcing) persons to provide specific information
First case:
On the 14th of April at 08:00 AM S.P. went to tend his goats, the joint operations commander met
S.P. and this police member asked him: do you know Koboi? S.P. responded, I dont know him The
police member said, Youre an adult and you dont know him? The police member hit his body, and
pounded his rifle butt in S.Ps stomach, and asked S.P. for his telephone, S.P. responded with his
mother. So he sent S.P. directly to get his phone from his mother, and to give it to that Police. Then he
was taken to the Lalulai post, then was handed over to Sr. X. Whom the commander arrested and took
to Lalulai, then brought the phone back and returned it to S.P., at his home. (S.P. Child of 14 years)
The first case shows that;
When the joint force conducts action and hits and rifle butts S.P in the stomach this shows the that
joint force has made a violation of the right to freedom of physical integrity and security, a sub
category of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment34.
The joint force also commited violations of the right to freedom of expression and information when
using force to oblige a person to provide information through the use of force.35 Right of the child to
live free from violence or abuse36.
Also the joint force took S.P.s telephone against his will, to obtain information demonstrating that
the joint force violated the right to property, sub-category of arbitrary interference in the private
property of an individual37
Case number two:

On Monday the 14th of April 2014 at 07:00 AM a joint team composed of F-FDTL and PNTL went to
Sra. JGs home. There were many F-FDTL members and one PNTL only. The PNTL member brought a
notice to advise the community, then they entered Sra. JGs home, five F-FDTL members searched the
house and bedrooms. The PNTL member directed Sra. JG to open the cupboards, and take out the
clothes to be searched. Then the PNTL member directed Sra. JG to dig up the floor inside the room,
because of suspicion that rifles or grenades had been buried there. The PNTL member also threatened
her saying you dig that spot fast, if not I will throw a grenade at you and you will lick the ground and the
stones there. There was no letter to explain to Sra. JG but after digging the hole, no rifles or grenades
were found, so the PNTL member went outside and apologised to Sra. JG three times, but Sra. JG did not
34
CRDTL art. 30 (4); ICCPR art. 7; CRC art. 37 (a).

CRDTL 40 (1); ICCPR art. 19 (1); CRC art. 13.
36
CRDTL 18. (1); ICCPR art (7); CRC art (19)
37
CRDTL 54. (1)
35
20
accept, as she was very sad and afraid.

J.G. A woman of 43 years
The second case shows;
The joint force entered a persons home without a warrant from the court, which shows that the joint
force violated the Right to Privacy of Home or Correspondence; sub-category Arbitrary Interference
with a Persons Home.38
The joint force obliged a civilian to dig up the ground to search for a grenade may be a threat to a
persons life and the act of threatening with the words, you dig that spot fast, if not I will throw a
grenade at you and you will lick the ground and the stones there shows that the joint force violated
citizens Right to Life, Sub-Category Threaten to Kill.39
The joint force forced an old lady to dig up the ground looking for evidence, shows that the joint
force violated the Right to Freedom of Physical Integrity and Security, Sub-Category Enslavement of
Forced Labour.40
PNTL/FFDTL pressured and forced

people to provide information about
activities
60
40
20
0
la fo presaun
fo presaun
la hatene
Feeling free from intimidation

Based on the results of interviews and the questionnaire the PDHJ used in the joint operations area,
41% of respondents felt that their community was not an environment free from intimidation by the
PNTL, F-FDTL or community leaders. For the first PDHJ monitoring, based on Parliamentary Resolution
No/ 4/2014, the situation, in general, in sub-district Laga in Baucau, movement was normal and people
were free to go about their daily activities as normal. When the monitoring team interviewed several
community members, they did not mention intimidation from PNTL or CPD-RDTL or KRM groups.
38
CRDTL art 37; ICCPR art 17

CRDTL art 29; ICCPR art 6. (1)
40
CRDTL art 30 (4); ICCPR art 8
39
21
Is the environment free from

intimidation by PNTL or F-FDTL or
community leaders?
60
40
20
0
40.625
46.875
12.5
ambiente laos livre
ambiente livre
la hatene
Following this the activities of the joint operation reflected intimidation. The community felt
intimidation from PNTL and also F-FDTL conducting operations in their area. Normally intimidation
occurs because of a lack of informationit is normal for the community to feel surprised when they see
the presence of a joint PNTL and F-FDTL force in their area. The information the community were aware
of was that the State sent them to shut down the CPD-RDTL and KRM in their area. However,
information about the presence of the PNTL and F-FDTL was not known by the community themselves.
Because of this lack of information the community in some sucos felt afraid because of the rumours
circulating in the community.
In relation to community feelings in the following graphic, when the monitoring team asked the
community if the PNTL/F-FDTL used excessive force when entering their sucos, 34% said, PNTL/F-FDTL
used excessive force. Statistics from the sub-district Laga, show that 60% of people said PNTL and F-FDTL
used excessive force when entering their aldeia. The highest percentages were in the Sucos of Samalari,
Sagadati and Soba and the lowest in Aldeia Lalulai.
% saying Polsia/F-FDTL used

excessive force to enter the Suco
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
34.375
62.5
3.125
uza forsa makas
la uza forsa makas
la hatene
22
Box Two: Specific occurrences of intimidation with force

Case Three;
On Monday the 21st of April 2014, at midnight the joint team came on foot, shouting out saying wakeup, wake-up. Then the kicked the door of Sra. TC to wake her and open the door, she came out, F-FDTL
and PNTL members, standing outside, and asked Sra. TC, Do you know L-3?. Sra. TC replied, L-3 is my
husband, but they were previously gathered at Lalulai and havent come back yet. But the joint force
said further, you dont know, you have been cooking for them in the forest, you say again that you dont
know? The joint force called Sra. TC, with her two children and said, come sit on this bamboo
platform. So they also came out, Sra TCs son named Sr. DD came from the house, an F-FDTL member
hit him immediately with his rifle butt in the head, but not hard and hit his body and the back of his
neck, and kicked him once in the back. They took Sra. TCs two children to wait beside the Church, and
several PNTL and F-FDTL members brought another four people together with Sra TC and her two
children. Together the seven of them were taken to the Aldeia office. When they got to the Aldeia
office, the joint operations members told them to line up. Then the joint force members insulted them
saying, to Sra TC and the others your husband(s) are hiding, you are cooking and taking food to them to
eat, so that they can stay in the forest and make us patrol at night, and not feel tired during the day.
Then having said that they kicked Sr. DD and took them all to the PNTL office in Baucau, after the
investigation, put them in the police cells, from early in the morning until 4:00 PM at night when they
took them back home.
Sra. TC., Sub-District Laga
The third case above according to PDHJs analysis shows;
When the joint force used actions such as hitting Sr. DD. in the back of the neck and kicking in the
back, and hitting with rifle butt, this shows that they violated the right to physical integrity and
security, sub-category cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment41,
When the joint force detained people without an arrest warrant, this shows that the joint force
violated the Right to Freedom of Physical Integrity and Personal Safety, Sub-Category, Arbitrary arrest
and detention.42
There is also analysis that the joint force swore at and insulted people in a public place, showing that
the joint force violated the Right to Honour and Privacy, Sub-Category Arbitrary attacks on Honour
and Reputation.43
When the joint force arrested people and took them to the Police Station for investigation but did not
provide any notification of a Crime to the Public Ministry, the PDHJ analyses this, as a violation by the
joint force of the citizens Right to Access to Court Sub-Category Lack of Accusation or Failure to
Register a Crime or Not Communicating with the Public Ministry44.
41

CRDTL art 30. (2,3); ICCPR art 9.(1)
43
44
CRDTL Art 26; ICCPR Art 2 (3); ICESCR Art 2 (1)
42
23
Adding to these behaviours the PDHJ concludes that the members of the joint force committed
violations based on the right to freedom of expression and information, when they forced people to
provide information through use of force.45
Box Three: Cruel treatment and excessive use of force

Case Four;
On Monday, 14th of April 2014, at 07:00 AM, one PNTL member and 30 F-FDTL came to call Sr. D to
take him to the Joint Operations post in Lalulai. Once there they asked Sr. D, Do you know the people
from CPD-RDTL and KRM who have fled to the forest? Sr. D replied, I dont know. So in the morning the
sent Sr. D back to his home. On the 21st of April 2014, at midnight the joint operations force returned to
Sr. Ds house and called and shouted out to Sr. D saying, Are you coming out or not? So Sr. D opened
the door and came out, the PNTL and F-FDTL members put hand-cuffs on Sr. Ds wrists, and punched
him in the head once and then asked Do you know Lemorai and L-3? Sr. D responded, I dont know
The joint force sente Sr. D to the Suco office and a car came and took him to Baucau. He was put in the
Police cells for one night, and on the 22nd of April 2014 in the afternoon he was driven back to Sr. Ds
home.
Sr. D, Sub-District Laga
Case Five;
On the 21st of April 2014, at midnight, police and F-FDTL members called Sr. J to come out and put
hand-cuffs on him immediately and took him to the underneath of the Sacred House, one PNTL member
(un-named) kicked him in the chest, and now Sr. J is coughing blood.
Sr. J Sub-District Laga
Analysis of cases four and five show that;
When the joint force arrested people, and committed unauthorised actions such as punching and
kicking that was not balanced against the physical strength (or response) from the person being
arrested, the PDHJ analyses that this behaviour shows that the joint force has violated citizens Right
to Freedom, Physical Integrity and Personal Security, Sub-Category, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment46.
Furthermore, when looking at the behaviour of the joint force conducting actions at midnight, without
explanation of the crimes committed, but putting them directly in hand-cuffs, taking them to the
police detention cells, the PDHJ analyses that in this part, the joint force violated the citizens Right to
Freedom, Physical Integrity and Security; Sub-Category, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention.47
45

47
46
24
In relation to the joint force obliging people to provide information using force, the PDHJ indicates
that the joint force violated the Rights of Citizens to Freedom of Expression and Information.48
Case Six;
On Friday the 26th of April, 2014, at 6:00 PM an unknown party telephoned to Sr. ANM saying, where
are you at present? Sr ANM responded Im in Dili. They said, they took the money we collected for
CPD-RDTL, do you comrade have money to put together to look for a Defence lawyer to help get our
colleagues from prison? After he heard this Sr. ANM hung up the telephone.
On Sunday April 27th 2014, at 10:30 an unknown group telephoned asking, the money has been put in
a car, so you just wait in Baucau to receive the money. The Sr. ANM went out to meet a friend CM, and
called him saying, lets the two of us go down there? So his friend CM got on his motorbike, and he
said to CM that, later, when we get there, if those people are really CPD or other people, you go speak
directly with him. Then Sr. ANM telephoned to tell the PNTL to arrest him because he was telephoning
Sr. ANM day and night. Then the two of them went there, and it was not CPD-RDTL members, but the
joint force wanting to trick them. According to Sr. ANM, the moment the two of us arrived, they (the
joint force) arrested the two of us, took us to Lanud, then they punched me in the side, in my hands,
kicked me in the knees and in the kidneys. The joint force members said, You need to tell us the truth,
if not, you will be dead. Sr. ANM responded saying, so shoot me then, Im ready to die.
Sr. ANM added further that, at 12:30, they took us back to the police cells for 72 hours. On the 30th of
April, they took us to the Prosecutors office in Baucau. Then back home. Now we are waiting for our
trial.
Sr. ANM, Sub-District Laga
Upon study of the chronology of Case Six, PDHJs analysis shows that;
When the joint force use excessive physical force such as punching in the side, kicking in the kidneys,
this is prejudicial to the health of the community member targeted thus, this, based on human
rights standards, is a case of human rights violation by the joint force against the citizenss Right to
Freedom, Physical Integrity and Personal Safety: Sub-Category Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
treatment.49
Based on analysis of the words used to threaten them by the joint force, saying, You need to tell us
the truth, if not, you will be dead, the Provedoria categorises this behaviour as showing the joint
force violated the citizens Right to Life, Sub-Category Threaten to Kill.50
Further analysis shows that the joint force violated the Right to Freedom of Expression and to
Information, when the joint force forced people to provided information using force.51
48

50
CRDTL art 29; ICCPR art 6. (1)
51
49
25
Case Seven;
On the 21st of April 2014, at midnight, the joint operation came with one PNTL and five F-FDTL with
one dressed in shorts and asked in a loud voice for Sra. ASs son to come out. Then the PNTL and F-FDTL
asked, Is Sra. L here? Then Sra. AS came out, the member dressed in civilian clothing called those
dressed in military uniforms to take her to the Aldeia Office. At that time, one soldier, kicked Sra. AS in
the left knee once and in the left shoulder once also. Sra. AS felt afraid, because the joint force was
waiting at the Aldeia Office. Then the police car came to take them, to the PNTL station in Baucau, to
submit to the investigation then directly to the cells. Sra. AS was together with 8 friends. In the cells they
received a meal for one day. On the 22nd of April they were taken back to their homes.
Sra. AS. Sub-District Laga
Reference to the behaviours in Case Seven according to the Provedor, show;
When the joint force kicked Sra. AS in the knee and shoulder this created a traumatic situation for
her feelings, not just as a human being, but as a mother who did not deserve to be treated with
physical aggression by the joint force. This physical aggression shows that the joint force violated the
Right to Freedom, Physical Integrity and Personal Safety, Sub-Category Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment52. Here, the Provedoria notes that the scale of force must be proportional, with
the response from the community, not to undermine the role of the joint force but to ensure that
there are benefits from the objectives of an effectively planned operation.
To go further with this case, according to the Provedoria, whenever the joint force arrested a person
and took them to submit to the process of investigation, then immediately at that time, that person
should have received a clear explanation about their case. But the reality shows that after the arrests
they were taken and submitted to the process of investigation and detained in a cell without the
provision of a clear explanation to that person about the case against them and according to the
Provedoria the joint force violated the citizens Right to Freedom, Physical Integrity and Personal
Security, sub-category, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention.53
Freedom of opinion and of expression and the right to receive information.

The RDTL Constitution provides protection of the right to opinion and of expression in articles 4054,
42 and 4356. Article 40 Point 1 also explains that all persons have the Right to Freedom of Speech,
and the right to receive information and to receive correct information.57
55
52
53
54

CRDTL, art 30 (2); ICCPR art 9 (1)
CRDTL, Article 40 (Freedom of speech and to information)

26
People have the right to express their

thoughts in public meetings
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59.375
34.375
6.25
la iha oportunidade
iha oportunidade
la hatene
Looking at the contents and explanation of article 40 in the paragraphs above, the Baucau District
Administrator, the Laga Sub-district Administrator, and the Laga Suco Chief explained that they
organised a meeting with local leaders regarding the joint operation. They said the line of coordination
between PNTL in the Laga Sub-district with the Suco and Aldeia chiefs and the community proceeded
well. Thus the community made way for the joint operation to conduct their work. However in other
aspects, the statement from two Aldeia chiefs to the PDHJ monitoring team said that, they did not
receive any information about the meeting with the District Administrator, and also did not receive any
information about the joint operation. Because of the lack of information some people in Baucau did not
know that they had to carry their ID cards when they left their house with the result that the PNTL
arrested some people without justification.
Box Four: Consequences of Lack of Information
1. All persons have the right to freedom of speech and to obtain information, and to recieve correct
information.
2. Freedom of speech and to information cannot be limited by any form of censorship.
3. The law will regulate the rights and freedoms mentioned in this artilce, on the basis of the imperative
and in respect of the Constitution and with respcet to the dignity of individuals.
55
RDTL Constitution, Article 42 (Freedom to conduct meetings and protests)
1. All persons have the guarantee of the freedom to meet in peace and without weapons, and without
the ned for prior authorisation.
2. All persons have the Right to Protest, in accordance with the law.
56
RDTL Constitution, Article 43 (Freedom of Association)
1. All persons have Freedom of Association, in peace and without violence in accordance with the law.
2. No person is obliged to take part in any association or remain in any association against their will.
3. Armed associations, military and paramilitary associations and organisations wishing to defend ideas
of a racists character against any foreigner or to promote terrorism are prohibited.
57
As number 37 above
27
Case Eight;
In Resolution No. 4, we knew and worked together with the District and Sub-District Administrators,
the PNTL commander, the aldeia chiefs to distribute/share information. But Resolution No. 8 talked
about a joint operation, we only heard that there would be a further joint operation. But we didnt know
what their work would be; only the technical people can know that. In Resolution No. 8/2014 we also
respected the Government but the operation sometimes asked community members to present their
electoral cards for examination, and they were arrested, when they should have been looking at the list
of people they were looking for, and not just arresting people arbitrarily.
AM, Suco Chief in Baucau
Based on Case Eight the Provedoria analyses that;
If the Joint Force were obeying the rules properly, they would have the duty to cooperate with local
leaders, particularly those living close to the operations target area in order that there would be
no miscommunication between the joint force and local leaders. If the local leaders had received
sufficient information, they would then have the duty to channel it to the communities they lead.
However based on the behaviour in Case Eight above, the Provedoria analyses that, the
implementation of the joint operation gave no explanation to the community about what they
were going to do, and the facts show that the joint force violated the Right to Protection of
Personal Information, Sub-Category Not being given access to personal information58.
Furthermore, in relation to the behaviour of the joint force in asking the community for their
electoral cards and making arbitrary arrests, not using the list of people being targeted by the
operation, this fact shows that the joint force violated the Right to Freedom of Expression and
Information, Sub-Category Limitation of Censorship of Information or Expression59, of the
community living close to the area of operation of the joint force.
At the Suco level, 59% of respondents told the PDHJ monitoring team that they had no opportunity
to participate or express their thoughts at the public meeting. These statistics show that the relevant
authorities did not share sufficient information to the community about the joint PNTL/F-FDTL operation
to stop the activities of the CPD-RDTL and KRM group members.
During the joint operations, local authorities and community leaders had the role to inform the
community living close to the operations target area about cooperating with the joint force when
conducting the operation. The areas identified were: the Sub-district of Laga including Suco Lalulai and
Samagia, Sub-district Quelecai including Suco Avaa, Baguia, Labalou, Wekubuti and Namane; Subdistrict of Baguia including Suco Samalari, Uebitae, and Lavateli. In the operation based on Resolution
No. 8/2014, the PDHJ monitoring team identified that there was no coordination between PNTL
authorities and local authorities. Because of this the local authorities didnt know about the security and
military forces operation in the field.
58
59
CRDTL 38 (1)
CRDTL 40 (2) ICCPR art 19 (2.3)
28
In Resolution No. 4/2014 authorities at the suco and aldeia level distributed information to the
community through socialisation, public meetings about what the PNTL where going to do. Based on this
Resolution, the people participating were the District and Sub-District Administrators, the PNTL
Squadron Commander, the Suco and Aldeia chiefs, CPD-RDTL and KRM leaders and members and the
general community. Because of this the community didnt know what the joint operation was going to
do. The suco and aldeia chiefs also didnt know what activities the joint operation was going to conduct,
the information they knew about was that there was a second Resolution from the government.
Right to freedom of movement
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all legal persons within the State
territory or within the territory, have the right to freedom of movement and freedom to choose their
residence.60 During emergencies, such as war, the State has the right to limit the right to freedom of
movement but in order to do this it must declare a State of Emergency in the Parliament.61
The PNTL action based on Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, in Baucau proceeded normally and
there was no action from any parties. When the joint operation based on Government Resolution No.
8/2014 commenced the joint operation also conducted searches of vehicles travelling in the area of
Laisorulai, in Suco Lalulai. The operation was able to capture 9 people identified as using military
uniforms, martial arts attributes and weapons (knives and machetes). According to the observations
from the monitoring team, operations in the area starting from Laga to Suco Libagoa, Nunira, Samalari,
Larisula (suco Salari), Terloidae, Lalulai, former KRM gathering point in Lalulai, Sagadati, Atelari, Lafateri,
Defawasi, Samalari, Aloa Kraik and Leten also in the sub-district of Baguia proceeded normally. Learning
activities in schools business activities, agriculture and community movement in these areas proceeded
normally.
The information found by the monitoring team regarding the joint operation conducted in the
operational target area in the Sub District of Laga, Suco Lalulai and Samagia; Sub District Quelecai, Suco
Avaa, Baguia, Labalou, Wekubuti and Namane; Sub District of Baguia, Suco Samalari, Uebitae, and
Lavateliwas that activities and circulation in the area in question was completely stopped. If there
were urgent activities, people could get authorization through the Aldeia and Suco chiefs, and could be
accompanied by the joint force to attend to the needs of the community in the area in question.
Box Five: Incidents of Violation of Freedom of Movement, Cruel Treatment and Intimidation
Case Nine;
60
Article 12 (1) ICCPR and also (3) ICCPR: " The rights expressed above may not be subjected to any restrictions,
except those determined by law deemed to be necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or
moral values or the rights and freedoms of other people, and also consistent with the other rights enshrined in this
Convention
29
On the 30tjh of April 2014, I was travelling from the sub-district of Quelecai going back to Baucau, at
that time the car was full, so that I was hanging off all the way to the top of the Sub-district Quelecai,
where the joint operation made a search at midday. When we arrived they made those of us who were
hanging on to the truck to get down on the ground and do push-ups. Then they told the six of us and the
drivers assistant, to get off and stay there. And then from there get another vehicle to Baucau. So the
six of us got off and stopped there. In the end they sent me and two of my friends to Quelecai and the
other two and the drivers assistant got on another car going and got out in Baucau. That just left me
there alone. Then they asked, Are you CPD-RDTL too? I replied, no! Im a student. Then they beat me.
I said to them, if you beat someone you have to let them know before you beat them. When I said this
they punched me in the lower part of the left ear, then swore at me, and hit me in the chest with a rifle
butt. I went down, and they kicked me in the left side twice. They said, that person is really CPD-RDTL
trying to snatch the rifle.
Then they sent me to the police station in Quelecai, to discuss the matter. But I was badly injured so I lay
down on the side of the road, but they continued to force me. So I made myself walk, and half-way
there, we met a small truck that was taking goods to Quelecai. They stopped it and asked the female
owner to help by carrying me. The female owner did not want to, because the car was not supposed to
carry passengers, but to sell goods. The other reason was that the vehicle was not going all the way to
Baucau, just stopping at Seixal.
The police continued to force her saying, carry him to Seixal, and he can get another car to Baucau.
Then the police made me get into that car. Then I met up with my brother whom the police had earlier
sent ahead to Baucau, waiting on the side of the road. So I stopped the car there. He also got up into the
car with me, at Momana, I felt my wound aching, and I slept in the car. When we got to Seixal, a friend
called TG contacted directly the PNTL in the Sub-district of Baucau. They came with a car and took me to
the Hospital in Baucau to the doctor. After they took me back to the Police station in Baucau. At the
PNTL Police Station in Baucau, I provided information.
After that, they sent me to the military police office. I went there, and gave information again. They sent
me to make a statement. Which I indeed did, but there was a Military Police member, who said I should
speak and he would write. At that time, I spoke a lot, but he only wrote a little. So I refused to accept it. I
said, brother, give me the paper and I will write it myself. So he heard me and gave me the paper and
pen. So I wrote it myself. After the MP said that I should sign it and he would read it. So I signed it, and
gave it to him. After he accepted my statement, he said, your statement is a political manoeuvre, so
your statement is not valid. He also added, you have understood politics from school already, what will
you learn in the future, when you complete high school, you wont have any contribution to the nation.
Then he sent me back to my brother with strong words.
Sr. F. Student, Baucau.
Analysis of the ninth case shows;
30
When the joint force use serious physical aggression such as punching Sr. F in the ear, swearing,
beating him with a rifle butt in the chest, and kicking him twice in the side until he was wounded
seriously, at the same time forcing Sr. F in a serious condition to travel, this shows that the joint
force violated his Right to Freedom, Physical Integrity and Personal Safety, sub-category Torture,
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment62. The Provedoria has the expectation as outlined above
that an operation can be achieved in accordance with the rules so as not to remove the human
rights of citizens, and to avoid prejudicing their life in the future.
The Provedoria is certain that when the joint force arrested this person without showing him the
arrest warrant, and also treating them cruelly that this shows that the joint force made a violation
on the basis of Arbitrary arrest or detention63. The Right to Dignity and Privacy, Sub-Category
Arbitrary attacks on honour and personal reputation64. According to the Provedoria there must be a
baseline (standard) which provides a guide for members conducting operations in the field.
The PDHJ teams experience with searches
On the 1th of April 2014 in Aldeia Larisula, Suco Lalulai, Sub-district Laga, the joint force team
conducted searches of passengers travelling in the area in question. On the same day, the PDHJ
monitoring team travelled to Baguia and was searched by the joint force. The PDHJ team was asked to
present their electoral cards. Even though the monitoring team handed over their work identity cards,
the PNTL member of the joint operation continued to ask for the electoral cards saying this card is for
use in the work place, we need to see your electoral cards The monitoring team was able to meet the
joint operations team commander to explain the role of the PDHJ and to continue its observations of the
searches of travelling community members.
Case Ten shows that:

Based on Article 27 of the RDTL Constitution, which provides for the existence of the PDHJ as an
independent organ, whose role is to monitor, oversee and respond to citizens problems with
public authorities and to examine their behaviours in obeying the law and preventing and taking
measures to ensure justice, and also has the competency to examine concrete cases, without
having the power to decide, but with the power to send recommendations to the competent
organs.
In Article 44 (1) The duty to conduct collaborative activities
Any person, including civil servants, administrative staff and elected officials of civil organs or
military commanders, must collaborate and provide all information requested by the PDHJ in the
conduct of their role.
62

64
63
31
Thus the actions taken by the joint force in asking for the individual identify cards of the PDHJ officers
who were conducting monitoring in the joint operations target area was an impediment of the
monitoring work and did not demonstrate proper cooperation from the joint forces with the PDHJ
monitoring team, showing that the operational force violated the Constitution65 and also the PDHJ
Organic Law66. According to the Provedoria the F-FDTL and PNTL leadership must provide a clear
explanation to their elements conducting operations in the field. So that the lines of coordination are in
accordance with the laws in vigour in Timor-Leste. Regardless of the role and objectives they must
uphold these principles to guarantee the rights of the citizens of RDTL so as to not to leave behind
dehumanised feelings in community, following the completion of the operation.
Freedom to conduct daily activities

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12.5
81.25
6.25
la livre
livre
la hatene
In activities of searching passengers, searches were made of their persons, goods, bags and they
were asked for their electoral cards. Passengers that did not have electoral cards or were carrying
martial arts equipment and military uniforms, were separated from the other passengers to continue
the investigation process at the PNTL post (at that time the PNTL arrested nine male passengers who
were carrying machetes, knives, and martial arts uniforms Korka) The observations of the monitoring
team were that there were only male PNTL and military but no women in the area. So, though the
searches went well, there was a need to include women military or police to be able to meet the needs
of female passengers. This would also have upheld ethics and not given rise to misunderstandings by
women.
Situation with the Detained in Baucau
After travelling to the sub-district of Baguia on the 9th of April, the PDHJ team visited the police cells
in the district of Baucau to meet with those detained and conduct interviews. In the Police cells in
Baucau they met with people who had been arrested during the search operations conducted in Lalulai,
Laga.
65
66
CRDTL art. 27
Law PDHJ no.7/2004 art. 44(1)
32
After PNTL arrested the nine detainees, they took them to the Commander in Lalulai, to provide
information before taking the detainees to the police station in the sub-district of Laga, to provide
information and complete statements. At the PNTL station in Laga, the majority of 8 of the detainees
were badly treated by the Police. This mistreatment included: being punched, kicked and slapped.
At 10:00 PM on the same day, the Police at Laga, took the nine detainees to the Police Station in
Baucau. In the cells the detainees received adequate food and sanitation. But there was nowhere to
sleep and no health treatment for them. In the police cells, the nine detainees were threatened and
mistreated.
The majority of the detainees had informed their families and some had visits from families who
were living in Baucau. But up until the time the monitoring team conducted monitoring in the cells the
detainees had not received any legal assistance from the Public Defenders office. The detainees added
that, they did not know about nor had they received any information about the presence of the Public
Defender. This behaviour makes the Provedoria very concerned, because citizens must be provided with
a clear explanation of their rights so that they fully understand the situation they are facing. Thus the
Provedoria considers this a violation of the category of fair trial in a criminal case, sub-category of not
providing the opportunity to choose legal counsel or to have a defence lawyer provided67 and also the
sub-category of not being given sufficient opportunity to prepare a defence.68
The Right to Privacy

The RDTL Constitution, Article 37 (2) says that entry into a persons residence, against the wishes of
the owner, can only be done with a written order from a judicial authority, in accordance with and by
those means set out in law. This article means that it is illegal for PNTL to enter peoples homes without
a court issued search warrant.
The monitoring team interviewed 32 people to ask them about the PNTLs entry into their homes. Of
the total number interviewed, 29% responded that PNTL had entered their homes without showing any
court issued search warrant prior to entry.
67
68
CRDTL, Article 34 (2)

ICESCR Article 14 (3b)
33
Police entry into people's homes

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
29%
71%
tama
la tama
Use of force proportional to the situation

Decree-Law No. 43/2011 of the 21st of September is the Legal Regime regarding the Use of Force.
While the PNTL were executing of Parliamentary Resolution to stop the activities of illegal groups that
might threaten the fate of the State of Timor-Leste, the process of execution did not give rise to any
reaction from CPD-RDTL members nor any other groups, however there were complaints about the
conduct of the PNTL because they had not received adequate information sufficiently prior to the
closure of their offices and bringing down of their flags. In Lalulai there was a reaction from CPD-RDTL
and KRM members against the PNTL, including an incident of throwing a Molotov cocktail at PNTL in the
area in question. From the perspective of the PDHJ, the PNTL may use force when necessary in actual
situations in the field. However its use must be based on the standards of the policy on the use of force
and be based on Proportionality, Legality, Accountability and Necessity69.
Box Six: Arbitrary interference with a persons home
Case Eleven.
On the 14th of April at 07:00 the joint force went to a house. When they arrived at the house the force
surrounded the building. He was afraid and hid under a bamboo platform (under the bed). He saw the FFDTL members surrounding the house and a PNTL member whose name was not known to him,
conducting a search. At that moment the PNTL member saw Sr. E under the bed. When he saw him the
PNTL member dragged Sr. E from his hiding place, and an F-FDTL member asked, why were you
hiding? he asked this and immediately kicked Sr. E in his right ribs. The F-FDTL member said in a loud
voice in Makasae (language) now tie him up with this rope.
Then Sr. E put his hands out so that the joint force could tie them. However in the end the force were
not able to tie Sr. Es hands. But at that moment, the F-FDTL member telephoned immediately to his
colleagues, and then several more PNTL and F-FDTL members arrived, but Sr. E did not know the name
69
DL no. 43/2011 art. 10 (1-4) regarding the use of force to restore order.
34
of the PNTL members. Then Sr. E was further order to, go and stand over there. Then the PNTL
member tied Sr. Es hands behind his back and made him sit out in the hot sun. The PNTL went into the
house and conducted a search. In the house a PNTL member looked under the pillows and took a knife,
torch, a monocle and took the batteries outside and threw them all in the mud. When taking these
things out the force went back into the house again, they saw Sr. Es bag hanging at the head of the bed,
they took it outside and put it with the other things. The joint force asked Sr. E, you have a phone
charger, but where is your phone?.
And the police asked further of Sr. E, do you know Koboi, Lemorai, or Sirlaku? Then the PNTL member
found Sr. Es telephone and saw Lemorais number inside and asked, why have you put Lemorais
number inside your phone? Sr. E replied, one time in Lalulai on the 10th of March, 2014, I took it then
And the PNTL threatened Sr. E saying, did you tell them? Sr. E replied saying, I dont know about
them The PNTL member slapped Sr. Es right and left ears twice. The military went into Sr. Es house up
top. When they got there, they searched the things in the house. On seeing that there was nothing there
they came down again. They asked again saying, did Koboi and Lemorai hide rifles here or not, do you
know? The PNTL member said to him to his friends in the joint force, at present he doesnt know; lets
take him to the top of the mountain. An F-FDTL member who had kicked Sr. E called four other F-FDTL
members from up on the hill to come, and the three F-FDTL took Sr. E to the command post. At the
command post they asked Sr. E again about Koboi, saying Sirlaku, and Lemorai, do you know them or
not? Sr. E responded I dont know their whereabouts? The F-FDTL members sent one member to
open a bottle of water and poured it into Sr. Es mouth saying, lets cool him down inside so that when
we ask he will answer. The F-FDTL Commander (whose name Sr. E did not know) said to Sr. E, you help
me, we will also always help you. Sr. E did not know the commanders name. The Commander added,
if you show Koboi, Lemorai and Sirlaku, I will also help you. Sr. E responded, Komandante, its better
that you just kill me, because maybe you will go look for them and not find them and say I am doing the
wrong thing still. The Commander then said to his members, pour some more water in his mouth.
Sr. E reported that, with this action of pouring water in my mouth, I blacked out and fell over.
According to Sr. E, seeing him fall, F-FDTL members put a SORU around his right hand. After putting the
SORU on him they took him immediately to the Health Centre in Laga. When they got to Laga, seeing
that his condition was bad, they took him immediately to the Referral Hospital in Baucau. Sr. E declared,
at the Hospital in Baucau, the nurses put a Soru on me. And I received eight Soru in three days. On the
16th of April 2014 the PNTL took him back to the Lalulai Post. At the Lalulai Post, the PNTL interrogated
him and made him make a statement, leaving the CPD-RDTL. Once he made the declaration a PNTL
member said, You are unhappy because you are afraid of rifles and uniforms.
In depth analysis of Cased Eleven by the Provedoria shows that:
When there is systematic abandonment of operational procedures resulting in the implementation
of physical aggression such as kicking Sr. E once in the right ribs, slapping his right ear once and his
left twice, and threatening to tie him with rope and making him sit in the hot sun, is it recognized
or not the serious illness that is given to the victim that has arisen from the aims of the joint force
operation. The Provedoria analyses that from the long chronology of what Sr. E experienced from
35
the joint force, as a violation of Sr. Es Right to freedom, physical integrity, and personal safety,
sub-category, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment70.
Furthermore the Provedoria observes that when the joint force entered the house to conduct the
search under the pillows, and took the goods outside, with the aim of finding evidence of Sr. Es
involvement, in the end there was nothing resulting from the search, which shows that the joint
force violated the Right to Privacy, Home and Correspondence, sub-category, Arbitrary interference
with a persons home.71
Despite this, adding to the facts mentioned by Sr. E, the joint force took a knife, torch, monocle,
battery and opened a cupboard to take Sr. Es telephone, the Provedoria analysis is that the joint
force violated the Right to Property, sub-category, violation of Social Function of Private
Property.72
Viqueque (sub-district Uatalari and Uatocarbau)

When the PDHJ monitoring team was circulating in the District of Viqueque to get up to speed with
the real situation produced by the Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, from direct observations and
discussions with the PNTL Viqueque District Commander, it was reported that, for his part, the Viqueque
District Police had not responded in the operation. The reason was that in Viqueque, the police may
attend to situations within the District. The methods used by the PNTL included making approaches and
explanations, because during the period of problems with martial arts groups, the PNTL used this
manner to attend to and resolve the situation in Viqueque. The Police and local authorities started to
establish Suco Police Officers and Community Police Councils with the aim of identifying any challenges
encountered in the Suco and to be able to be closer to the community.
The general situation in Viqueque proceeded well without problems. There were no reactions from
groups during the operations, because these groups do not have the same numbers of people. The
authorities distributed information from Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 so the community were
already aware of the Resolution. Thus when the Police and the Sub-district Administrator executed the
Resolution there were no problems, and they had good cooperation from all those groups involved.
The explanation provided by the Uatulari sub-district Administrator was that on his part he
contacted the community to identify whether they had been involved in the groups or were still in
contact, to provide an explanation and to approach the community in general, as well as group
members, including the Suco Council, so that they would understand better about Resolution No
8/2014.
To check up on the statements of the local authorities, the monitoring team approached the
community with the aim of gathering concrete data. The Uatulari community informed them that during
the operation their lives had remained peaceful, without intimidation, and they had conducted their
work as usual. The community also respected the role of the PNTL and did not make any reaction
against the police. This was because in their location, there had been not gathering places and there
70
KRTL, Art. 30 (4), ICCPR Art. 7, KKT, Art 16

KRTL Art 37 (2), ICCPR Art 17
72 KRTL Art 54 (2)
71
36
were no problems. The police in Uatulari conducted patrols as normal, because the situation remained
normal.
Adding to what the Uatulari community said that, they themselves knew about the Parliamentary
Resolution from the TVTL media (national television). And that there had not been any problems with
the behaviour of the authorities, because there was no movement of PNTL and F-FDTL there. However
they also felt concerned with information in the TVTL media about illegal groups, some of whom had still
not been captured. So they accepted collaboration with the State between PNTL and the F-FDTL to
provide security for the entire territory, and to ensure the safety and security of citizens. However they
asked for there to be action with professionalism and respect for individual human rights, and in
accordance with the laws in vigour in the nation. Some community members felt concerned about the
situation in relation to Government Resolution No. 8/2014 regarding illegal groups which may threaten
the situation in the country, particularly in the Sub-district of Uatulari itself, so because of this there was
a need for information from local authorities and the police to guarantee the future and so that the
community would be able to continue with their normal activities.
The community of Uatocarbau also informed that while the resolution was being implemented,
there were no confrontations because there were good lines of coordination between the community
and authorities. The operation was composed of Police and involved the Uatocarbau Sub-district
Administrator, and the Suco Chiefs. However before this they distributed information and had dialogues
with the communities. The community added that, the place where the gathering of the illegal groups
had taken place was not destroyed because they were considered community buildings. And the people
in the groups had returned to their homes and their daily lives, in the fields, paddies and so on.
Aileu
The statement from the Assistant PNTL Commander in Aileu District was that when the National
Parliament issued Resolution No. 4/2014 and the order came from the PNTL Commissioner, on their part
they immediately shut down the activities of CPD-RDTL members circulating within Aileu district. During
the implementation of the resolution, there was good cooperation with CPD-RDTL members themselves,
and also from the general community. During the Parliamentary Resolution, both community and CPDRDTL members followed the matter in the mass media and in electronic means, the newspapers, radio
and TVTL. The process of shutting down the activities of CPD-RDTL members was undertaken with good
cooperation with local authorities such as Suco chiefs, and Sub-district administrators in the areas where
members of PCD-RDTL had been identified as living.
In other aspects, the Assistant PNTL Commander and the Assistant Aileu District Administrator
questioned the movements of Bua-Malus, and Kristu Dudu La Ba groups, where there was a strong
indication of the involvement of several Veterans who had lied about illegal collections of money and
told various lies in the communities. Because of this the Assistant PNTL Commander said that they
gathered data in relation to the movements of these illegal groups, and when there was clear evidence
they arrested members of illegal groups to be processed in accordance with the current laws. These do
not look at the political affiliations of the individuals, but guarantee that the community can live free
from rumours and focus on building their lives and contributing to the nation.
37
Ainaro
Implementation of the Resolutions in the district of Ainaro ended in March, with the closing of the
CPD-RDTL Office, the seizing of military uniforms, boots, berets, belts, CPD-RDTL membership cards and
also weapons that may present threats. However in the action the PNTL allowed for the on-going
freedom of CPD-RDTL members to conduct meetings. The PNTL also seized agricultural equipment that
CPD-RDTL members were using to conduct farming work. The equipment seized by the PNTL included
machetes, crow bars and mattocks.
According to the information from the monitoring team the process of execution of the resolutions
did not have good lines of coordination between authorities for the dissemination of information to
community and CPD-RDTL groups. The PNTL General Command that received the orders from the
National Parliament then sent orders to the 13 District Commands that were not uniform, and gave rise
to some doubts between local authorities in relation to sharing information about the contents of the
resolutions and the orders and directives for execution in their areas.
Bobonaro
Through monitoring and direct interviews with those in the District of Bobonaro, the police used
excessive force and used cruel treatment against members of illegal groups in circulation in the subdistrict of Bobonaro and Maliana. There were arrests without explanations in public places such as in the
roads and markets. Mistreatments occurred during arrests, however once taken to the detention cells
there was no mistreatment. The majority of PNTL did not provide explanation to the community and
community leaders prior to implementation of the Resolution in the field.
Covalima
In the district of Covalima, the monitoring team conducted interviews with the Covalima District
Administrator and the District PNTL Commander, who said that there was good cooperation and work
together with CPD-RDTL and community members with local authorities, and good lines of coordination
in the process of lowering the flags and destroying the notice-boards or symbols of CPD-RDTL.
However in other aspects the PDHJ received complaints from a CPD-RDTL leader that, when the
PNTL came to take down the boards and flag, he was not present himself. At that time the PNTL
members only heard from the community living nearby, that the house of the member had been built
with contributions from the CPD-RDTL member and because of this the police sent a tractor to pull
down the house and toilet without his knowledge as the owner of the house. According to him the
action was against the rules or laws and violated his right to a home. Because according to him the
house destroyed by the PNTL was his own home and was built with his own sweat.
Ermera
According to direct observations by the monitoring team of the security situation in the District of
Ermera, the situation was generally normal. Based on the results of interviews with members of the
CPD-RDTL group the PDHJ noted that the PNTL in Ermera had indeed executed the Parliamentary
Resolution to stop the activities of the illegal groups through various means such as pulling down the
organisations notice-boards, seizing military gear such as uniforms, belts, boots, berets, and other
things. This was followed with banning the CPD-RDTL members from being further involved in CPD-RDTL
groups, taking declarations from CPD-RDTL group members and asking members who had not yet made
statements to the Police to voluntarily present themselves at the nearest Police post.
38
During the conduct of operations the PNTL did not do anything against the law. However the
monitoring team noted that the rights of members of CPD-RDTL had been violated such as their right to
food, mistreatment/cruel treatment such as forced cutting of hair, making them clean the PNTL building
and keeping them in cells for longer than necessary without clear reason. The motives for detention of
the members captured was to identify the suspects and to punish them.
There were observations that the PNTL did not properly identify illegal groups in accordance with
the Parliamentary Resolution. The results show that the PNTL members arrested and detained Sr. Abro
Martins alias Rusa Fuik who is a coordinator of ASDT (not an illegal group).
In Aldeia Nunupou, Suco Ponilala, Sub-District Ermera, there are indeed to persons who became
members of CPD-RDTL but are now living in Baucau and have not yet returned to their residence in
Nunupou. These two people are named Evaristo Madeira and Anjelino Babo. These two people went to
Dili to look for work under the Comoro Bridge screening gravel, but in the end information was received
that the two of them had already joined CPD-RDTL in Baucau.
Manatuto (first monitoring in Manatuto and Baucau)

The monitoring team conducted interviews with three authorities, including the Laclubar Subdistrict PNTL Commander, and two Suco Chiefs from Suco Fatumakerek. As well as these authorities,
interviews were conducted with seven community members composed of four women and three men.
The information collected was that the local authorities had good lines of communication with the PNTL
in socialising information with the community and the CPD-RDTL group regarding Resolution No.
4/2014. During the execution of orders the police did not use force because there was no reaction from
CPD-RDTL members. When the PNTL executed the orders the members of CPD-RDTL cooperated well
with the PNTL and handed over the military gear that had been identified.
Manufahi
In the district of Manufahi, the monitoring team conducted interviews with the PNTL Commander,
local authorities, community leaders, and the community living near the operational areas. The general
situation was normal and the communitys activities in the area in question continued to proceed
normally. In the operational target areas the PNTL conducted searches of public transport, seized
military equipment (such as military uniforms, berets and boots), stopped marches, took CPD-RDTL
cards, closed offices, lowered flags, and pulled down CPD-RDTL notice boards. In several Aldeias such as
Aldeia Fahiluhan and Betanu the PNTL stopped all CPD-RDTL activities including meetings, cooperative
activities and banned the use of the CPD-RDTL name.
Oe-cusse
In the district of Oe-Cusse the situation proceeded well, but the community complained about the
attitude of some PNTL members who conducted actions to destroy CPD-RDTL notice-boards without
explanation and excessive Police presence with many vehicles driving around and creating panic in the
community.
Categories of Violations Occurring

Following implementation of the resolutions and in accordance with the Statutes of the Provedoria
No. 7/2004, the Department of Monitoring and Advocacy conducted monitoring activities to collect facts
39
in the field and concluded that in the implementation of NP Resolution No. 4/2014, Government
Resolution No. 8/2014, and ending with Government Resolution No. 13/2014 which authorized the joint
force to implement it, that there were indeed violations of human rights in the operational areas. The
following is a list of the violations identified by the PDHJ team:
Relevant Laws
Number of violations
noted
CRDTL art. 30 ICCPR

art. 7; CRC art. 37
(a).
Arbitrary arrest and

detention
CRDTL art. 30 (2)

ICCPR art. 7; CRC art.
37 (a).
Slavery of Forced
Labour
CRDTL art 30 (4);

ICCPR art 8.
Arbitrary interference
in a persons home.
CRDTL art. 37 (3)

KPP art. 169 (1) and
art. 171 (1)
Violation of the social

function of private
property
KPP art. 168 (2)

Decree-Law No.
4/2006, art. 4 artigu
KPP art. 170 and 171
DRTL art. 54 (1)
Arbitrary interference
with a persons private
property
CRDTL art. 54 (1)

KPP art. 168 (2)
Decree-Law No.
4/2006, art. 4 artigu
KPP art. 170 no 171
Right to dignity and

privacy
Arbitrary attacks on
dignity and reputation
CRDTL art 36; ICCPR

art 17.
Right to freedom of
expression and to
Use of force to oblige

people to provide
CRDTL Art 26; ICCPR

Art 2 (3); ICESCR Art
Violation Area
Right to Freedom,
Physical Integrity and
Personal Safety
Right to Privacy of Home

and Correspondence
Sub-Category
Torture and Cruel,

Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment
(TAKLU)
Right to property
40
information
information
2 (1)
Limitation on
censorship of
information and
expression
CRDTL Art 26; ICCPR

2 (1)
CRDTL 18. (1); ICCPR

art (7); art (19)
Childrens right to
freedom from violence or
abuse
Right to life
Threat of death
CRDTL art 29; ICCPR

art 6. (1)
CRDTL Art 26; ICCPR

2 (1)
Right to access to justice
Non receipt of
complaint, or failure to
register a crime or
failure to communicate
to the prosecution
Not being granted
access to personal
information
CRDTL 38 (1)
Right to protection of
personal information
In the process of gathering data the violations of human rights that occurred during the
implementation of the resolutions are those described above. Following this the Provedoria has
forwarded its recommendations to the relevant institutions to provide a guide for implementation of
future resolutionsso as not to diminish, or ignore the human rights of our citizens in the absence of
proof of specific indications regarding groups or individual citizens. Thus the law is not merely an
administrative or bureaucratic system, but more importantly should lead to the development of a
culture of respect for the law, and ensure that citizens and implementing authorities comply with the
implementation of the outcomes of any law.
Conclusion
The PDHJ determined the facts that occurred based on grassroots monitoring activities and on the
bases on legal analysis as follows;
1. Examination of the hierarchy of laws, the position of the first and second resolutions are against the
principles of the legal structure
a. In reference to Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014, prior to the Police implementation of the
Resolution, no Court had declared the CPD-RDTL group to be illegal based on Decree-Law No.
5/2005.
b. The PDHJ analysis is that the Court is the highest organ of justice and has the power to declare a
group illegal or not, and to issue orders, so that the PNTL can execute on the basis of an order
41
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
73
from the Courts and in respect of the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedures Code and the Civil
Procedures Code to prevent situations which threaten public security. Based on these laws the
competent entities can then act without waiting for any resolution either from the Government
or the National Parliament.
c. Execution of the law does should not require any consideration of political affiliations, nor be
arbitrary, so as to avoid political leanings, and to avoid delays in responding to the public
interest.
d. The PDHJ also concludes that Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 and Government Resolution
No. 8/2014 is not in accordance with the hierarchy of the sovereign organs of the State.
According to the PDHJs observations of Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 it arose from a small
event but consumed a great deal of public attention and had a large impact making the people
afraid and panicked.
The PNTL were not able to fully implement Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014 because of the lack
of equipment, resources and preparation.
The joint operations activities conducted based on Government Resolution No. 8/2014 in the subdistrict of Laga showed a lack of respect for human rights.73
According to the results of the PDHJs monitoring, during the joint operation, the F-FDTL/PNTL
members conducted their roles contrary to the laws in vigour in the nation of Timor-Leste, and
further for the reason that F-FDTL and PNTL members who committed crimes have not been subject
to legal proceedings, to change their attitudes.
Based on the facts determined by the PDHJ as a result of its monitoring, the actions of authorities
conducting the operations in performing searches were not in accordance with the Criminal Code
nor with the Criminal Procedures Code;
a. The results of monitoring show that the actions of authorities entering and searching
community members homes were not in accordance with CRDTL art. 37 (2,3), ICCPR art. 17 KPP
art. 168 (2), 169 (1) and art. 170 and 171 (1).
b. The police did not show search warrants issued by courts or the Public Ministry when entering
peoples homes to search and therefore Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading treatment took
place during searches.
c. The police did not respect the time limitation when taking people into custody (detention).
d. Detainees arrested by police in the operations had no access to legal counsel and no
information about their right to representation by a lawyer.
During operations the F-FDTL did not follow orders and did not follow military authority when
entering peoples homes and as a result their actions resulted in incidents of torture, cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment.
According to the PDHJ analysis, Resolution No. 8/2014 did not provide a time limitation for the
operation; however the Council of Ministers issued a further Resolution No. 13/2014 to add a
further month to the operation without justification of the contents of Resolution No. 8/2014 and
No. 13/2014, giving rise to a legal contradiction.
CRDTL Art. 147 (2)
42
9. According to the National Security Law art. 35 (1-3) which declares the engagement (deployment) of
F-FDTL during joint operations, the F-FDTL may be involved in a domestic situation during a situation
of emergency. The ICCPR states that a public emergency means something which threatens the
State. An example of a State of Emergency includes an armed conflict, civil conflict involving
violence, natural or environmental disasters. According to the PDHJs analysis, the use of Military
Forces to conduct operations such as the joint operation did not respect the separation of powers
and non-interference of one state organ in the role of another.
Recommendations
Based on the monitoring results during the implementation of the Parliamentary and Government
Resolutions, the PDHJ recommends to the competent entities as follows:
Presidency of the Republic

- The PDHJ recommends to the President of the Republic as the Head of State to guarantee the
functioning of the CRDTL as the basis of the laws and the separation of powers. When problems
are encountered in the country, as the Head of State he must alert the government regarding the
competencies for execution.
- Request the President of the Republic to take into consideration human rights aspects in the
implementation of decisions that will have an impact of making some people victims of the actions
taken.
National Parliament
- Recommends to the National Parliament to request the joint force to present its report of the
implementation of Resolution No. 4/2014 and No. 8/2014, so as to be able to respond in a
transparent, accountable and open manner to the public. This report must include the following
human rights and good governance issues:
o The actions taken by the Joint Operation and the area where it took place.
o Coordination lines used by PNTL during the operation.
o Legal perspective on implementation of the Resolutions throughout the country.
o List of serious incidents that occurred during the operation.
o Description of the PNTL mechanism used to deal with actions that involve violence.
o Sanctions used by the Police to punish PNTL members who committed illegal acts.
- The PDHJ recommends to the National Parliament to organise an independent enquiry to discover
the real situation inside PNTL with regards to equipment, other resources, and their capacity to
conduct joint operations.
RDTL Government
-
The PDHJ recommends to the Secretary of State for Security to create a policy to guarantee
accountability and transparency during the execution of operations.
43
Recommends also that the Secretary of State for Security notify the PNTL command to
prepare equipment in a condition so as to be able to attend to any threats to national
security.
There is a need to create cooperation with the relevant ministries, independent institutions
and civil society, to conduct socialization of the law in vigour in Timor-Leste to the entire
community.
Recommend to the Ministry of Justice to improve the justice system particularly the
presence of Public Defenders to ensure that all persons have sufficient assistance during the
justice process.
Request the Ministry of Justice to give attention to the aims, vision and mission, of any
groups formed, political parties established, or for NGOs, or organizations that they must
register with the Ministry of Justice in accordance with the law in vigour in Timor-Leste.
Request the Secretary of State for Security to take measures to stop or close down the
activities of any organisations, or political parties or NGOs that are not legally established
and conducting activities against the law without being based on any resolutions.
PNTL Institution
-
Recommend the PNTL Command when conducting its duties must use personal ID so that it
is not difficult to identify any member that does not follow the established rules in carrying
out their duties.
PNTL Command to ensure that PNTL members respect the Criminal Code and the Criminal
Procedures Code in any actions when carrying out their duties so as to avoid violations of
human rights and violations of laws in vigour in Timor-Leste.
The PNTL Command needs to create a good mechanism for conducting oversight of PNTL
equipment, so that PNTL can perform its duties properly as the guardians of security and
provide protection and assistance in situations that threaten the Timor-Leste sovereign
state.
Request the PNTL Command to guarantee all detainees have access to legal counsel or a
Public Defender.
Request the PNTL Commend to organize a process of internal enquiry of the institution to
deal with those PNTL members who committed crimes during the joint operation to Court
and for them to be dealt with by the laws in vigour.
F-FDTL Institution
-
Request the F-FDTL Command to guarantee that F-FDTL members obey the law when
participating in joint operations.
Public Ministry
-
In the future, only the Courts as the judicial organ have the competency to declare an
individual act, group or organization illegal, and this may not be done by any other sovereign
organ.
44
Recommend also to the Public Defender General to mobilise resources to provide services in
those places where high levels of violence is occurring compared with less violent places, so
that all detainees can enjoy their rights to assistance in the justice process.
Implementation of Recommendations
Request the PNTL and F-FDTL institutions to provide information to the PDHJ regarding the
implementation of these recommendations within 60 days, as mentioned in article 74.3 of Law
Number 7/2004, the PDHJ Statutes.
In the case of non-compliance with these recommendations the Provedoria of Human Rights
and Justice can communicate this occurrence to the National Parliament, in accordance with
article 47 (4) of the PDHJ Statutes.
In order to maintain commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights in a sustainable
manner and to safeguard the most vulnerable citizens, I express my thanks.
Dili, 14 August 2014

Dr. Sebastio Dias Ximenes
Provedor
45
Annex: Questionnaire and Instructions for Questions.

Questionnaire 1: For Authorities
PROVEDORIA DE DIREITUS HUMANUS NO JUSTISA

MONITORING FORM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION NO. 4/2014
Day / Date of Monitoring:

Name:
Position:
District:
Sub-District:
Interview in Suco:
Aldeia:
INTRODUCTION
Explain about the PDHJ and confidentiality ( ) can your name be used in the report? Yes ( ) no (
)
Pre-Action
1. Following the resolution what action did the authority take?
b. Where did your orientation come from?
C. Which units were involved in the action?
2. Who were the targets of the action?
46
b. Which locations were identified?

3. Prior to the action did the authority use dialogue or other means for dissemination of
information or not? Yes ( ) no ( )
B. By what means?
c. Who was involved?
d. What information was collected and by what means?
e. What action was taken based on this information?
Part B: Action
1. in the action, was there any reaction from the groups in question? Yes ( ) No ( )
2. If yes, what did the group use to react?
3. What means did the authorities use to calm the situation?
4. If force was used during the operation, was there a written report of the incident?
Part C: Post-action
1. Following the action, did the authority collaborate with the relevant institutions? Yes ( ) No (
)
2. If yes, with which relevant institutions?
Monitors name:
47
48
PROVEDORIA DIREITU HUMANS NO JUSTISA

MONITORING FORM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION NO. 8/2014
Day / Date of Monitoring:

Name:
Position:
District:
Sub-District:
Interview in Suco:
Aldeia:
INTRODUCTION
Explain about the PDHJ and confidentiality ( ) can your name be used in the report? Yes ( ) no (
)
Pre-Action
1. after receiving the resolution, did the authority share the information with the community
Yes ( ) No ( )
2. What means did the authority use to share information with the community?
(
) dialogue
) verbal
) public meeting
) socialization
) other (explain):_______________________________________________________________
3. Who received information?

(
) General community
49
) Illegal groups members
) individuals
) Suco Council
) Family members
( ) other.
4. Could the community share information with the authority? Yes ( ) No ( )
b. What information was gathered through the means used?
c. What actions did the authority take based on the information obtained?
5. Did the authority receive orientation? Yes (
) No (
If yes, from where:

(
) PNTL Commander
) F-FDTL Commander
) State Administration
) District Administrator
) Administradr Sub-Distritu
) other.
6. Explain the lines of coordination between authorities, PNTL, F-FDTL and the Community?
7. What units were involved in the action?
(
) PNTL: ( ) BOP ( ) Unidade Espesil ( ) Task Force ( )
other_______________________
7. Who were the targets of the action?
(
) KRM
50
) CPD-RDTL
) Bua Malus
) Frsa Defeza 75
) Frsa Nakukun
) other
Part B: Action
1. In the action, was there any reaction from the groups in question? Yes ( ) No ( )
2. If yes, what did the group use to react?
3. What means did the authorities use to calm the situation?
4. If force was used during the operation, was there a written report of the incident?
Part C: Post-action
1. Following the action, did the authority collaborate with the relevant institutions? Yes ( ) No (
)
2. If yes, with which relevant institutions?
Monitors Name:
51
Questionnaire 2: For Beneficiaries
PROVEDORIA DE DIREITUS HUMANUS NO JUSTISA

FORM FOR THE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION NO. 4/2014 AND GOVERNMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 8/2014
Day/ Date of Monitoring:

Name :
Age:
Position:
District:
Suco:
Aldeia:
Sub-District :
Bairru:
INTRODUCTION
Explain about the PDHJ and confidentiality ( ) can your name be used in the report? yes ( ) no (
)
REAL SITUATION THAT OCCURED
Free from intimidation
( ) Yes
( ) No
Freedom of meetings and association
( ) Yes
( ) No
Able to share opinion and expression
( ) Yes
( ) No
Freedom of Movement
( ) Yes
( ) No
Explain the chronology at the gathering place
52
Presence of Police Security and F-FDTL

1. Were members of PNTL or F-FDTL present?
( )Yes ( ) No.
2. Why did security forces need to be there? Hot situation ( )Yes ( )No
3. Did the police explain the resolution to you?
( )Yes ( )No
Role of Community Leaders

1. Was there coordination between PNTL/ FFDTL and community leaders? Yes ( ) No ( )
2. How was the coordination between PNTL or FFDL and the CPD-RDTL group in that location?
Explain?
Principle
Comments
1. Security
Did you have security at the gathering place?
Were other security forces present there?
Were there any concerns in relation to security?
Did the PNTL/F-FDTL use force to enter the

Office/Public Place
Article.3 UDHR all people have the right to live, to freedom and to personal security.
53
2. Freedom from intimidation

Did PNTL / FFDTL put pressure on people to
force them to provide information about their
activities, that was not correct.
Did the PNTL, F-FDTL or community leaders
create an environment free from intimidation?
Article 6 (1) ICCPR: "Each person has an inherent right to life. This right is protected by law. No person will have their
right to life removed arbitrarily."
Article 7 ICCPR: " No persons shall be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Specifically, no person
can be subjected to medical experimentation without their free consent."
Article 9(1) ICCPR: "All persons have the right to individual freedom and security. No person may be subjected to
arbitrary imprisonment or detention. No persons liberty may be taken away except in accordance with procedures
established in law."
Article 17 ICCPR: (1) No person may be subjected to arbitrary or illegal interference with their prviacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to illegal attacks on their honour or good name.
(2) All persons have the right to protection by law against any interference
3. Freedom of opinion and of expression

Opportunity to express their opinion in public
meetings?
- Article 19 (1): ICCPR " Each person has the right to express their opinion without interference."
(2) ICCPR: " All persons have the right to freedom of expression.; this right includes the right to seek, receive and provide information and
different ideas
without consideration of the form, oral, written or printed or artistic impressions through any means they desire.
- Article 20 (2): ICCPR Anything which advocates national, racial, or religious hatred which consitutues an insightment to discrimination
hostilities or violence is prohibited by law.
54
4. Right to Freedom of Movement
Were they free to go about their activities?
Were there any impediments from any party ?

why? explain!
Article 12 (1): ICCPR " All legal persons in the State territory will have, within their territory the right to freedom of movement, and freedom to
choose their residence.."
(3) ICCPR: "The rights expressed above may not be restricted except as determined by law where necessary to protect national security,
public order, public health or moral values or the rights and freedoms of other people, and consistent with the other rights recognised in this
Convention
5. Right to privacy
Did the Police enter your home?

Did the Police show you a letter from the court
before entering your home, if yes, did they explain
what it was?
Article 37 (No.2), CRDTL entering any persons home without the consent of the owner, can only be done with a written order from a judicial
authority with the power, in the case and by the means provided for in the law.
Article 17 (No.1) ICCPR No person may be subjected to arbitrary of illegal interference of their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and
also to illegal attacks on their honour (dignity) and reputation (good name)
Monitors Name:
55

Timor-Leste Ombudsman Report On State Actions Against Anti-Government Groups

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Timor-Leste Ombudsman Report On State Actions Against Anti-Government Groups

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice (Ombudsmans Office)

Freedom from intimidation ........................................................................................................ 19

Right to freedom of movement .................................................................................................. 29

Situation with the Detained in Baucau ....................................................................................... 32

The Right to Privacy .................................................................................................................... 33

Use of force proportional to the situation .................................................................................. 34

Viqueque (sub-district Uatalari and Uatocarbau) ............................................................................... 36

: Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

: Popular Democratic Council-Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

: Public Defenders Office

: Falintil-Frza Defeza Timr-Leste

: National Human Rights Directorate

: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

: Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic

: International Convention of Civil and Political Rights

: Criminal Procedures Code

: Maubere Revolutionary Council

: Monitoring and Advocacy Officer

: Provedor of Human Rights and Justice (Ombudsman)

: Polsia Nasionl Timor-Leste

: Resolution of the National Parliament

: Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

State Confiscation of Illegal Uniforms

National Parliamentary Resolution No. 4/2014

The Actions of the State PDHJ Response

Second Phase Issuing of Resolution No. 8/2014 by the Government

Legal Basis: Standards, Principles, Potential Violations and Relevant

Art 24 regarding Oversight and Communications, (letters a and b) state that:

Human Rights Standards, Violations and Relevant Legislation

a. Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Article 30 RDTL Constitution, (Right to individual freedom, security and integrity).

Interference with a persons home in relation to a crime scene

Numbers of men and women interviewed

Reason for visiting area

1. CPD-RDTL, Bua Malus

1. Bua Malus, CPD-RDTL

1. Bua Malus, Kristu Dudu La Ba, Frsa

CPD-RDTL, KRM and Bua Malus

The PDHJs Perspective on the National Parliamentary Resolution

Article 225 Criminal Procedures Code

The PDHJs Perspective on Government Resolution No. 08/2014

d) Date and signature

Government Resolution No. 13/2014, 7th of May

Results of Monitoring at the Grassroots

Number of women and men

Freedom from intimidation

Please refer to the questionnaire template in the annex.

Case number two:

CRDTL art. 30 (4); ICCPR art. 7; CRC art. 37 (a).

accept, as she was very sad and afraid.

PNTL/FFDTL pressured and forced

Feeling free from intimidation

CRDTL art 37; ICCPR art 17

Is the environment free from

ambiente laos livre

% saying Polsia/F-FDTL used

uza forsa makas

la uza forsa makas

Box Two: Specific occurrences of intimidation with force

CRDTL art. 30 (4); ICCPR art. 7; CRC art. 37 (a).

Box Three: Cruel treatment and excessive use of force

CRDTL 40 (1); ICCPR art. 19 (1); CRC art. 13.

CRDTL 40 (1); ICCPR art. 19 (1); CRC art. 13.