Special panel for serious crimes acquits a Defendant OF ALL CHARGES for the second time

On 23 March 2004, the Special Panel for Serious Crimes for the second time acquitted a defendant of all charges. Carlos Ena, an alleged member of the Sakunar militia in Oecussi was found not guilty of the murder of Ernesto Lafu and Vicente Quelo and other inhumane acts, both as crimes against humanity. In the same trial, Umbertus Ena, Carlos Ena's brother, was convicted of the same allegations. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment with 1 year and 9 months deducted for time already served.

The Panel of three judges, consisting of Slyver Ntukamazina (Presiding), Siegfried Blunk and Maria Natersia Gusmao, after examining all of the evidence and witness statements decided that there was insufficient evidence to prove Carlos Ena's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Panel will issue written reasons for its decision at a later stage.

The defence counsel for Carlos Ena, Allan Gutman, argued a strong case which raised doubt over whether the accused was even present at the crime scene when the events took place. One defence witness testified that Carlos Ena was not part of the group that committed the attack, but that he himself was present. By doing this, the witness implicated himself in these crimes. In his closing statement, the defence counsel claimed that the prosecutor has not yet investigated this person for their involvement in
these crimes. When contacted by JSMP, the prosecutor responded by stating that witness statements obtained by the prosecution cast doubt on this witness' claim and accordingly further investigation is not necessary.

JSMP is concerned that Carlos Ena was subject to approximately 16 months pre-trial detention when he was subsequently vindicated of the charges against him. A Court of Appeal decision in September 2003 ruled that Carlos Ena should be conditionally released. From May 2002 up until that time, however, he was detained. JSMP believes that the acquittal of Carlos Ena should result in a review of Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) detention requests and Special Panel decisions on this issue. The prosecution opposed defence
applications for Carlos Ena to be conditionally released, primarily due to his risk of flight, and this was the reason relied upon by the Special Panel. JSMP is of the opinion that conditional release would have been far more appropriate, particularly as the accused was prepared to live with a relative in Dili for the duration of the trial, rather than his home in Oecussi.

There are further concerns regarding the SCU investigation in this case. For example, witness statements resulting from the SCU investigation in 2002 gave two quite contradictory versions of events. JSMP believes that further investigation into why this occurred could potentially have resulted in the dropping of charges against Carlos Ena, and could have avoided the lengthy pre-trial detention of an innocent man. Also, autopsy and medical evidence reports were only submitted after the trial had begun. The lateness of this crucial evidence and the significant, unresolved inconsistencies in the SCU investigation brings into question the investigation procedure in this case.

=================================================================================
PELA SEGUNDA VEZ, O PAINEL ESPECIAL PARA CRIMES GRAVES ABSOLVE UM RÉU

Boletim de Prensa JSMP
24 Março 2004

No dia 23 de Março de 2004, o Painel Especial para Crimes Graves pela segunda vez absolveu um réu de todas as acusações. Carlos Ena, alegado um membro da Militia Sakunar em Oecussi foi considerado não culpado do assassinato de Ernesto Lafu e Vicente Quelo e outros actos inhumanos, como forma de crimes contra a humanidade. Em este mesmo caso, Umbertus Ena,
irmão de Carlos Ena, foi considerado culpado sob a mesma acusação. Ele foi sentenciado a 11 anos de prisão com um ano e nove meses reduzidos da sua pena pois já haviam sido servidos durante o processo.

O Painel de três juízes, composto pelos Juízes Slyver Ntukamazina (Presidente), Siegfried Blunk e Maria Natersia Gusmão, depois de examinar toda a evidencia decidiu que não havia provbas suficientes para a condenação de Carlos Ena. O Painel ainda virá a publicar suas razões.

O advogado de Carlos Ena, Allan Gutman, argumentou um caso forte que criou dúvidas sobre a presença do acusado na cena do crime quando os crimes aconteceram. Uma das testemunhas da defesa declarou que Carlos Ena não fazia parte do grupo que cometeu o ataque, mas que ele próprio estava presente. Ao declarar isto, esta testumunha implicou-se em estes crimes. Em
seu argumento final, a defesa argumentou que o procurador ainda não havia investigado o envolvimento desta pessoa nestes crimes. Quando contactado pelo JSMP, o procurador respondeu que não era necessário outras investigações neste caso pois a procuradoria já havia obtido outras declarações que trouxeram dúvidas ao envolvimento desta testemunha.

O JSMP preocupa-se com o facto que Carlos Ena esteve em detenção por aproximadamente 16 meses - desde maio 2002 até setembro 2003 - durante este processo. O Tribunal de Recurso em setembro de 2003 decidiu que Carlos Ena deveria responder o processo em liberdade condicional. JSMP acredita que a absolvição de Carlos Ena deveria resultar na revisão dos requerimentos de detenção pela Unidade de Crimes Graves e as decisões do Painel em casos de detenção de acusados. JSMP é da opinião que a libertação condicional de Carlos Ena era mais apropriada em este caso, particularmente pelo facto de que o acusado estava preparado a viver em Dili, e não em Oecussi, durante o julgamento.

Ainda há outras considerações que devem ser salientadas em relação a este caso. Por exemplo, declarações de testemunhas feitas à Unidade de Crimes Graves deram duas versões contradictórias dos eventos. O JSMP acredita que investigações sobre o porquê destas contradições poderiam ter resultado no abandono das acusações contra Carlos Ena, prevenindo sua longa detenção.
Ainda, autópsias e relatórios médicos foram somente submetidos depois do início do julgamento. A tardia destas evidencias cruciais traz em questão o procedimento de investigações da Unidade de Crimes Graves neste caso.

=====================================================================================

Pengadilian Khusus untuk Kejahatan Berat memutuskan mantan milisi tidak bersalah untuk kedua kalinya

Pada 23 maret 2004 pengadilan khusus untuk kejahatan berat untuk kedua kalinya membebaskan terdakwa tidak bersalah dari semua tuntutan.Carlos Ena adalah mantan anggota milisi sakunar di Oecussi yang tidak terbukti bersalah dalam pembunuhan Ernesto Lafu dan Vicente Quelo dan tindakan tidak berkemanusiaan lainnya.

Kedua kejahatan tersebut termasuk dalam kejahatan melawan kemanusiaan. Dalam kasus yang sama , umbertus ena adik dari carlos ena terbukti bersalah dalam kejahatan yang sama dengan hukuman 11 tahun penjara dikurangi dengan masa tahanan sementara yang sudah dijalani 1 tahun 9 bulan .

Hakim panel yang terdiri dari Sylver Ntukamazina (Ketua), Siegfried Blunk, Maria Natersia Gusmao Pereira. Setelah memeriksa bukti-bukti dan fakta-fakta serta pernyataan dari saksi-saksi hakim panel memutuskan tidak ada bukti yang cukup untuk membuktikan Carlos Ena bersalah. Panel hakim akan memberikan putusan tertulis dalam beberapa hari berikut.

Pengacara Carlos Ena yang diwakili Allan Gutman berargumentasi yang kuat bahwa mungkin terdakwa tidak ada di tempat kejadian perkara pada waktu kejahatan terjadi.

Ada saksi dari pengacara yang dalam pernyataannya mengatakan bahwa saksi yang bersalah karena terdakwa tidak ada di TKP pada saat kejadian. Saksi yang sama mengatakan bahwa saksi sendiri terlibat dalam kejahatan. Dalam sidang untuk kasus ini, pengacara bilang bahwa jaksa belum melakukan investigasi terhadap saksi yang terlibat dalam kejahatan tersebut.

JSMP kwatir bahwa Carlos Ena ditahan kira-kira 16 bulan percobaan tahanan ketika dia sebelum mendapatkan putusan terhadapnya tidak bersalah. Sebuah putusan dari pengadilan tinggi pada September 2003 memutuskan bahwa dia bebas bersyarat. Mulai mei 2002 sampai dengan sebelum putusan, bagaimanapun, dia sudah ditahan. JSMP Percaya bahwa dibebaskannya Carlos
Ena merupakan sebuah hasil peninjauan terhadap serious crimes Unit (SCU) dalam permohonan tahanan. Jaksa tidak setuju dengan pembela dalam permohonan untuk pembebasan bersyarat Carlos Ena. Alasannya karena resiko melarikan diri. JSMP berpendapat pembebasan bersyarat lebih cocok khususnya kalau terdakwa bisa tinggal dengan keluarga di Dili selama sidang belum
diselesaikan, daripada tinggal di Oecussi.

Ada kekwatiran yang lain mengenai proses pemeriksaan SCU dalam kasus tersebut. Seperti contoh, beberapa saksi dalam pernyataannya yang diberikan dua versi yang berbeda dengan apa yang terjadi. Untuk investigasi berikutnya mengapa dua jenis pernyataan mungkin Carlos Ena dibebaskan dalam pernyataannya yang diberikan dua versi yang berbeda dengan apa yang
terjadi. Untuk investigasi berikutnya mengapa dua jenis pernyataan mungkin Carlos Ena dibebaskan lebih cepat dan dia tidak perlu ditahan, juga autopsy dam bukti laporan medik hanya disampaikan setelah sidang mulai. Keterlambatan bukti yang krusial membawa pertanyaan proses investigasi SCU dalam kasus ini.