The Judicial System Monitoring Programme (JSMP), a FORUM-ASIA member in Timor Leste, claims that the establishment of a military court in the country has little legal basis. In a press release issued on 25 April, they said: “What standard of justice would be applied in a separate legal forum adjudicating cases of armed forces misconduct?”
Timor Leste is planning to establish a military court, but activists question whether it is able to ensure accountability of the armed forces. For it to meet with public approval, such a court would have to guard procedurally against claims that it dispensed special treatment to those in uniform.
The Judicial System Monitoring Programme (JSMP), a FORUM-ASIA member in Timor Leste, claims that the establishment of a military court in the country has little legal basis.
In a press release issued on 25 April, they said: “What standard of justice would be applied in a separate legal forum adjudicating cases of armed forces misconduct?”
This issue was sparked by the use of a site in Colmera, rather than the prison in Becora, as a detention facility for four captured dissident soldiers.
Activists are also questioning the justification for a military prison as the state of emergency is over. They are also sceptical whether those kept in custody at this special facility will join the general prison population now that the state of emergency has been lifted.
Government officials have given their justification for the use of the court.
Minister of Justice, Lucia Lobato, said the military prison was “a step toward the establishment of a military court”.
The President of the parliamentary commission responsible for security and defence issues, Duarte Nunes, claimed that a military court was needed.
He has publicly confirmed a plan to create a military court, however he added that the establishment of the court was delayed due to “resourcing” issues.
“What standard of justice would be applied in a separate legal forum adjudicating cases of armed forces misconduct? Though the creation of such a court is constitutionally allowable, there is little legal guidance on what its jurisdiction, composition or function might be,” JSMP said.
JSMP added that the Constitution indicated such a court would judge crimes “of a military nature” in the first instance.
“This appears to leave open the fortunate prospect of appeal. This issue takes on special significance given current, though as yet unsubstantiated, reports of abuses perpetrated under the auspices of the joint command,” the NGO said.
JSMP further said that for the court to meet with public approval, it would have to guard procedurally against claims that it dispensed special treatment to those in uniform.
“Special care would need to be taken to make certain that matters brought before a military court were properly investigated, and transgressions punished. Should this plan proceed, it must be ensured that the court does not veil abuses of power, but rather provides an avenue for legitimate public complaint.”
