Now available on line:
http://www.jsmp.minihub.org/Reports/jsmpreports/Torture%20&%20Transitional%20Justice%20in%20TL.pdf

Executive Summary

This report provides a snapshot of how the serious violation of torture is addressed within transitional justice mechanisms in Timor Leste; specifically, how torture is defined, investigated and indicted by the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) and how the Special Panels for Serious Crimes (SPSC) respond to the torture cases that come before them. It draws on documentation released by the Serious Crimes Unit and the Special Panels for
Serious Crimes. It also presents data gathered through interviews with staff of those organizations as well as with survivors of torture, victims' families, CAVR staff and workers of non-governmental organizations in Timor
Leste.

The report finds that, although torture was extensively used during the Indonesian occupation, the serious crimes process in Timor Leste has failed to effectively investigate and prosecute this crime against humanity. The SCU has narrowed its mandate to such an extent that torture charges are secondary to counts of murder and rape. Further, all 26 of those who have faced torture charges in court have been Timorese. In processing low-level militia members who do not bear the greatest responsibility for serious crimes, the transitional justice system has failed to bring Indonesian commanding officers to trial.

The report demonstrates that there has been inconsistency regarding the response to torture in the serious crimes process. Within the SCU, there has not been a systematic approach to building cases and definitions have rested on the discretion and politics of individual prosecutors. In the court room, judges have also taken a confused approach to the definition of torture. With torture proven in just four out of nine cases, the report
examines the issues of prosecutorial preparations and the reliability of witness testimony to show how prosecutors have struggled to convict torture. There is also concern that the SCU has, on occasion, lowered the threshold of torture within indictments. Some alleged activities have not actually constituted the level of seriousness warranted for a torture charge. In some cases, 'serious crime' charges taken by the SCU overlap with 'non-serious crime' charges that have progressed through the Community Reconciliation Process of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR).

The report argues that attempts to ensure human rights standards across state institutions must be prioritized. The number of allegations of maltreatment has risen during 2004-2005 and it is evident that political leaders could do more to send clear signals that human rights should be protected. Finally, it notes that the current judicial approach to torture goes against the human rights standards that are established through various human rights instruments and bodies. By law, torture survivors should receive acknowledgement, justice and reparation for the harms inflicted upon them. The attempts made by the serious crimes process in Dili has failed to effectively pursue these ends. Torture survivors have, in response, called for an international tribunal to meet their needs.