From: La'o Hamutuk <laohamutuk@easttimor.minihub.org> Subject: Case against Dr. Sergio Lobo Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:15:04 +0200

The following letter was sent to the Chief Prosecutor and the Investigative Judge of Dili District by the Legal Team for the wife of Dr. Sergio Lobo. It was also published in late March in the Timor Post newspaper. The letter, however, came too late to legally impact the decision of the independent Judge. Presently, the case is awaiting a trial date, expected to be set later this month. The trial will be monitored by local organizations as well as international lawyers from the newly formed Judicial System Monitoring Project. We are sending out this already public document in response to queries about the case.

-- La'o Hamutuk, the East Timor Institute for Reconstruction Monitoring and Analysis

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION Ukun Rasik An Farol Dili, Contact No. (0409)263718

Number : 02/III/Ex/2001

Re : Legal Summation

Nature : Important

Attached : 1. Letter of Authority 2. Letter in request of clarification

To : 1. Chief Prosecutor Dili District 2. Investigative Judge Dili District in Dili

With respect,

We, the undersigned: Aderito de Jesus Soares, S.H., Henrique Saturnino Alves da Cruz, S.H., Napoliao Soares da Silva, S.H., Arlindo Dias Sanches, S.H., Manuel Fernando Exposto, S.H., and Silverio Pinto Baptista, S.H., are practicing lawyers at the Legal Aid Institute of Ukun Rasik An located at Farol-Dili. According to the Letter of Authority dated the 24th of February 2001, we hereby act for and on behalf of our client by the name of G.G. Ernawati aged 36 years old, residing at Jl. Jacinto Candido, Akadiru-hun Dili, Timor Lorosae (the special Letter of Authority is attached).

· That with the Letter of Authority signed by G.G Ernawati, this summation is produced as a response towards the dismissal of detention (bail) of the accused Dr. Sergio Lobo, in the case of violent assault against our client as the alleged victim regarding the actions of the accused on the 4th of February in Dare, Dili;

· That in response to the dismissal of detention of the accused by the name of Dr Sergio Lobo, we as the authorised legal advisors to the alleged victim have produced a Letter of Request of Clarification regarding the dismissal of the detention, which was given on the 1st of March 2001 to the Chief Prosecutor Dili District and the Investigative Judge Dili District Court. To date, the alleged victim s legal team has yet to receive a written response to the abovementioned Letter in Request for Clarification;

· That we, as the authorised legal team of the alleged victim, along with our client have met directly with the Investigative Judge and the Prosecutor on the 13th of March 2001 to query the legal reasons for the dismissal of detention of the accused and a response to the Letter of Request for Clarification.

That from the meeting dated the 13th of March 2001 referred to above, the Investigative Judge has stated the following matters:

1. That due to the busy schedule and power failures, the Investigative Judge has yet to be able to write a written response to the Letter in Request for Clarification to the lawyers of G.G Ernawati;

2. That the main reason for the dismissal of the status of detention of the accused is the accused s profession as a doctor in which his specialty is needed;

3. That actually the status of dismissal of detention of the accused has actually given the accused freedom to leave the country. The Investigative Judge admitted to not considering the protection and safety of our client who had felt her life in danger due to the death threats or threats of other action by the accused which could really endanger her life;

4. That following this, the Investigative Judge was to discuss the above matter with the Prosecutor in our client s case and then following this would provide a response to the Letter in Request of Clarification.

Then, at a meeting between the legal representatives of our client and the Prosecutor, the prosecutor informed us of the following matters:

· That due to a busy work schedule the Prosecution and the Prosecutor had yet to be able to provide a response to the Letter in Request of Clarification from the legal representatives of G.G Ernawati;

· That the Prosecutor has completed writing the charges against the accused but was still waiting for the evidence, in the form of a needle and the wooden stick used for the alleged assault that were still being tested in a laboratory in Darwin;

· That the prosecution stated that the accused was not really free but still had a duty to report to CIVPOL. Following this the Prosecutor then questioned the responsibility of CIVPOL who should know and check directly the duty of the accused to report 2X a week and the possibility that the accused could leave the country.

· That on the other hand, the prosecutor requested our client as the victim due to the actions of the accused not to go out anywhere.

From the meeting and the results of the discussion above, we as the legal representatives of the victim, question the following matters:

· That the legal reasons for the dismissal of detention of the accused and with the knowledge of the Investigative Judge and the Prosecution due to his profession as a doctor has no basis in reason. At the present time Dr. Sergio Lobo has resigned from his position. This proves that without the presence of the accused, service at the Hospital continues to operate well.

· That the dismissal of detention of the accused means freedom or opportunity for the accused to escape and threaten the security and safety of our client, who according to us is actually being intentionally ignored by the Investigative Judge and the Prosecutor. This belief is strengthened by the explanation from CIVPOL who stated that they refused to sign the letter of statement that required the accused just to report 2X a week and actually wanted detention for the accused!

· That contrary to this, the Investigative Judge intentionally ignored the victim s rights in guarantying protection and safety for our client. Ironically, it was actually the prosecution who strongly said to the victim not to go around freely outside the house for her own safety;

· That actually it is the victim that must bear the burden of the accused s actions by shutting herself away like a prisoner due to the feeling of fear for her life.

· That until this time the legal representatives of the victim have yet to receive an answer from the Prosecutor or the Investigative Judge in regards to the Letter in Request of Clarification Regarding the Dismissal of Detention of the Accused.

In considering the victim s rights, thus the legal representatives are to take the legal steps found in UNTAET Regulation No. 30/2000, Paragraph 23.1 if this legal summation in not answered within 14 days commencing from the day this summation is produced.

For your attention and cooperation we thank you

Dili, 23 March 2001

LEGAL TEAM

1. Aderito de Jesus Soares, S.H.

2. Henrique Saturnino A. da Cruz, S.H.

3. Arlindo Dias Sanches, S.H.

4. Napoliao Soares da Silva, S.H.

Cc:

1. Civpol Dili District, c.q. VPU.

2. Human Right Unit, UNTAET

3. FOKUPERS, Dili

4. Yayasan HAK, Dili

5. G.G Ernawati as the client

6. File

ATTACHMENT:

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION

UKUN RASIK AN

Farol Dili, Telephone: 0409 236 3718

Number: 01/II/Ex/2001

Re: Letter for request of clarification of deferment of arrest.

Nature: Important

To,

1. Chief Justice Dili District

2. Chief Investigative Judge Dili District

In Dili

With respect,

In relation to the deferrment of arrest of the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo, suspected in a case of battery of our client, Mrs G.G. Ernawati on the 4th of February, 2001 in Dare, Dili, we feel the need for clarification of the following number of matters:

1. That according to section 12.3 UNTAET Regulation No. 30/2000, the victim should have the right to be heard at the time of a review hearing before the invstigative judge. To explain this we quote the said stipulation: Any victim has the right to be heard at a review hearing before the Investigationg Judge& .

What we have found is that at the time of defferement of arrest of the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo, the victim (our client) had not been informed nor were the victims views heard. This clearly endangers tot victim, because the victim continuously feels her life in threat following the assault previously perpetrated by the suspect previously.

2. That according to Section 12.8 UNTAET Regulation No. 30/2000 the public prosecutor must inform the victim about the progress of the case. To explain this we quote the said stipulation: The Prosecutor shall take reasonable steps to keep the victims informed of the progress of the case .

It is our observation that until this time there has not been any provision of information concerning the developments of the principle case by the Dili prosecutor to the victim. This led to the victim feeling unsure of the law in relation to the case that has befallen the victim.

3. That the letter of deferrment of arrest throught the letter of statement that was signed by the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo on the 8th of February 2001 which was witnessed by the Investigative Judge, the prosecutor and the public defender, is not clear regarding the status of the suspect. According to paragraph 22 KUHAP article (1) classifies the types of detention in three categories which are:

a) Detention in a State Penetentiary

b) House Detention

c) City Detention

In relation to the case of assault, we as the victim s lawyers wish to ask for an explanation of the suspects status. We see that there has been no explanation of the suspects detention status.

4. That in the letter of statement signed by the victim, in the same manner as mentioned in the above three aspects, the second point of the letter of statement states that the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo must report to Dili CIVPOL twice a week, that is, every Monday and Friday throughout the months starting from the 12th of February untul the 12th of April 2001.

Based on the observations of the victim s lawyers, throughout this time the suspect has not carried out those obligations according to the letter which was signed by the suspect. In fact as far as we are aware, the suspect has even been absent from the country during the said period of obligation to report.

Because of this situation, we feel that the authority of the legal system in general is being undermined. Due to this, the legal team requests the Chief Judge to take firm steps in this case.

5. That the release of the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo, who is a nota bene a public figure in Timor Lorosae, without clear legal reason will create a negative image for the independence of the judiciary. For this, our legal team requests the Judiciary, the Investigative Judge and CIVPOL District Dili to reconsider the release of the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo. The effort of reconsidering the release of the suspect Dr. Sergio Lobo will also give a guarantee of safety to the victim who has throughout this time felt trauma as a result of the assult that has been perpetrated by the suspect upon her.

6. That the judiciary, investigative Judge and CIVPOL must truly respect the victims rights to be free from the feeling of fear and intimidation as is expressed in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights that is also adopted in UNTAET Regulation No. 1/1999.

Our letter is a request of clarification, we hope cooperation between all sections of law enforcement will provide a feeling of justice for the suspect and victim and in particular will create a better image of the independence of the judiciary in Timor Lorosae. For your cooperation, we thank you.

Produced in Dili,

On the 1st of March 2001

Legal Team

Arlindo Dias Sanches, S.H.

Aderito de Jesus Soares, SH.

Henrique Saturnino A. Da C., S.H.

Napoliao Soares da Silva, S.H.

CC:

1. CIVPOL Dili District, c/o, VPU

2. Human Rights Unit, UNTAET.

3. FOKUPERS, Dili

4. Yayasan HAK, Dili

May Menu
April
World Leaders Contact List
Human Rights Violations in East Timor
Main Postings Menu