10 Dezembru 2007
Timor-Leste sente orgullu hodi hola parte iha rai balun deit iha mundu ne’e, nebe ratifika hotu kedas ona konvensaun internasional hitu ba Direitu Humanu.
Ita adere ba konvensaun sira ne’e ba promosaun no mos ba defeza ema sira nian, ita aprezenta tiha ona relatóriu substansial ida, nebe kumpri tuir dispozitivus nebe previstu tiha ona iha konvensaun sira ne’e, no ita mos iha ona relatóriu ba dala rua nebe prontu no aprovadu ona, nebe ita sei hatan ba Nasoes Unidas iha tempu badak mai.
Desizaun nebe hola tiha ona iha 2002, husi Estadu Timor, atu tuir onvensaun hitu ne’e mai husi ita nia konviksaun nebe respeitu Direitus Humanus no valor husi Direitus Humanus iha konstrusan sosiedade ida ho Justisa.
Desizaun husi ita nia Estadu atu moris husi respeitu ba valores Liberdade, Igualdade no ba Justisa, respeitu ida ke iha abut ba ita nia istória luta ba libertasaun no ba direitus Timor oan sira nian.
Hau halo hotu ona no sei kontinua atu halo nafatin – hanesan Prezidente no mos hanesan sidadaun ida – atu bele hakat liu difikuldade nebe ita nia Nasaun iha atu tenki kumpri obrigasaun hotu hotu kona-ba konvensaun Direitus Humanus.
Hanesan Prezidente no sidadaun simples ida iha Timor-Leste hau sente orgullu atu bele kontribui atu hari’i hau nia rai bazeia ba respeitu ba direitus hotu hotu, liberdade no mos ba garantia ba sidadaun sira. Atu ajuda hari’i rai ida nebe bazeia ba respeitu direitu moris no mos ba dignidade ema ne’e nian, no rekuza ba pena de morte, ba prizaun perpétua no ba formas violensia sira seluk husi Estadu kontra nia siadadun rasik.
Hau sente katak liu husi tinan 20 resin nebe ita luta no ita rezisti – iha perigu nebe boot liu no ho violensia nebe boot liu – sakrifisiu nebe vale, wainhira ita hari’i dadaun rai ida bazeia ba Liberdade, Igualdade no Direitu Moris no Dame.
Hau sente satisfasaun ida wainhira hari’i ita nia rai bazeia ba igualdade direitus entre mane ho feto, igualdade sidadaun iha lei nia oin, iha promosaun direitu labarik nian – ita nia sidadaun iha futuru.
Maibe hau mos hatene katak ita persiza tempu barak hodi fo garantia ba Direitus Humanus iha Timor-Leste.
Hari’i dadaun iha ruína nebe ema husik hela ba ita iha 1999, ita nia Estadu jovem bazeia ba Direitu no mos ba liberdade sivil no polítika, sem dúvida.
Maibe sei falta atu realiza direitu sosial no direitu ekonomiku barak.
Seidauk tan ita tenki halo hotu situasaun ida nebe todan liu tan hanesan kiak.
Ita sei falta atu halo konsolidasaun no estabilidade no dame. Ita sei falta atu fo garantia ba atmosfera konfiansa, atu bele dada emprezáriu sira, hodi bele ajuda kria barak liu tan empregu, liu liu ba sira nebe foin sa’e, no mos atu bele ajuda kria moris diak ba ema hotu hotu.
Loron-loron Ita mos tenke hari’i igualdade direitu ida ke boot liu entre mane ho feto. Ita mos tenke kombate violênsia doméstika. Ita tenki garante ita nia labarik oan sira nia edukasaun ida nebe diak liu tan, no direitu ba edukasaun sem violênsia.
Ita tenki servisu atu bele fo ita nia labaraik oan sira no ba ita nia foin sa’e sira oportunidade dezenvolvimentu ekilibradu barak liu tan no mos ba promosaun ekonómika no sosial.
Iha loron Direitus Humanus ne’e, hau husu ba povu Timor-Leste, ba mane no feto sira, ba profesor sira, ba foin sa’e sira, atu bele fo, loron loron, imi nia kontribuisaun husi imi nia ezemplu nebe diak, atu bele rejeita violênsia.
Hau hakarak husu ba povu atu bele kontribui, iha aldeia, iha eskola, iha merkadu, iha familia nia let, iha sirkunstânsias hotu hotu, ba vida ida ke trankuila no la iha violênsia iha imi nia komunidade laran.
Respeita diak liu tan Direitus Humanus iha ita nia rai laran, hanesan servisu ida ke labele sai governu nian deit. Nia hanesan Governu nia dever, maibe hanesan mos dever ba povu hotu hotu. Ita so bele hadian ita nia rai nia vida diak liu tan, liu husi ajuda husi parte hotu hotu.
Hanesan Presidente da República hau reafirma kompromisu sagradu atu hala’o knar ba hau nia mandatu, iha hau nia vida hanesan sidadaun simples ida, hau sei kontinua hodi halo esforsu hotu, hodi bele promove respeitu ba Direitus Humanus, inklui mos direitus ekonómiko, sosial no kultural, ba Timor oan tomak.
Hau sei konta ho imi nia ajuda, ha hafoun fila fali hau nia kompromisu atu servisu sem deskansu atu bele iha fim ba violência, ba dame, be eliminasaun Pobreza. Atu konstrui Nasaun livre husi Kiak sei sai difísil liu knar ida ke difisil liu iha area Direitus Humanus.
Atu konstrui nasaun ida livre husi kiak no nasaun ida ho dame no trankilidade sei sai objektivu atu ita hetan: hanesan eransa nebe, ho firmeza no ho servisu, ita bele husik hela ba ita nia oan sira nia jerasaun.
Ba ida ne’e, ita tenki servisu hamutuk atu halo Timor-Leste sai Nasaun ida ke diak liu tan.
Monday, December 10, 2007
MENSAGEM DO PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA NO DIA INTERNACIONAL DOS DIREITOS HUMANOS
10 de Dezembro de 2007
Timor-Leste sente orgulho por ser um dos poucos países no Mundo que ratificou todas as sete convenções internacionais de Direitos Humanos.
Aderimos a essas convenções de promoção e de defesa dos direitos das pessoas, já apresentámos um relatório substancial, cumprindo dispositivos previstos nas convenções, e temos já um segundo relatório pronto e aprovado, que será submetido em breve às Nações Unidas.
A decisão tomada em 2002, pelo Estado timorense, de subscrever essas sete convenções resultou das nossas convicções de respeito pelos Direitos Humanos e do valor dos Direitos Humanos na construção de uma sociedade com Justiça.
A decisão do nosso Estado nasceu do respeito pelos valores da Liberdade, da Igualdade e da Justiça, um respeito que tem raiz na história da luta pela libertação e pelos direitos dos timorenses.
Eu tenho feito tudo e tudo continuarei a fazer – como presidente e como cidadão – para ultrapassar as dificuldades que a nossa Nação ainda tem para cumprir todas as obrigações das convenções dos Direitos Humanos.
Como Presidente e como simples cidadão de Timor-Leste sinto orgulho por contribuir para construir o meu país baseado no respeito pelos direitos, pelas liberdades e pelas garantias dos cidadãos. Por ajudar a construir um país baseado no respeito pelo Direito à vida e pela dignidade das pessoas, na recusa da pena de morte, da prisão perpétua e de outras formas de violência do Estado contra os cidadãos.
Sinto que os mais de 20 anos que lutámos e que resistimos – no meio dos maiores perigos e da maior violência – valeram o sacrifício, quando estamos a construir um país baseado na Liberdade, na Igualdade e no Direito à Vida e à Paz.
Sinto satisfação por construir a nossa Nação baseada na igualdade de direitos entre homens e mulheres, na igualdade dos cidadãos face à lei, na promoção dos direitos das crianças – os nossos cidadãos do futuro.
Mas também sei que ainda estamos longe de terminar este trabalho de garantir os Direitos Humanos em Timor-Leste.
Construído sobre as ruínas que nos deixaram em 1999, o nosso jovem Estado é baseado no Direito e nas liberdades civis e políticas, sem dúvida.
Mas falta ainda realizar muitos direitos sociais e direitos económicos.
Falta-nos ainda acabar com as situações mais graves de pobreza.
Falta-nos consolidar a estabilidade e a paz. Falta-nos ainda garantir uma atmosfera de confiança, para atrair os empresários, para ajudar a criar mais empregos, sobretudo para os mais jovens, e para ajudar a criar mais bem-estar para todos.
Temos também de construir - todos os dias - uma maior igualdade de direitos entre os homens e as mulheres. Temos de combater – todos os dias – a violência doméstica. Temos de garantir às nossas crianças uma educação melhor, e o direito a uma educação sem violência.
Temos de trabalhar para dar às nossas crianças e aos nossos jovens mais oportunidades de desenvolvimento equilibrado e de promoção económica e social.
No Dia dos Direitos Humanos, peço ao povo de Timor-Leste, aos homens e às mulheres, aos professores e professoras, aos jovens, para darem, todos os dias, o contributo do seu bom exemplo, para rejeitar a violência.
Quero pedir ao povo para contribuir, nas aldeias, nas escolas, nos mercados, nas famílias, em todas as circunstâncias, para uma vida tranquila e sem violência nas suas comunidades.
Respeitar melhor os Direitos Humanos no nosso país é um trabalho que não pode ser só do governo. É um dever do Governo, mas é também um dever de todo o povo. Só com a ajuda de todos podemos melhorar a vida do nosso país.
Como Presidente da República reafirmo o compromisso sagrado de, no exercício do meu mandato, assim como na minha vida de simples cidadão, continuar a fazer tudo para promover o respeito pelos Direitos Humanos, incluindo os direitos económicos, sociais e culturais, de todos os timorenses.
Contando com a vossa ajuda, renovo o meu compromisso de trabalhar sem descanso em favor do fim da violência, da paz, e da eliminação da Pobreza. Construir uma Nação livre da Pobreza será conquistar o mais difícil entre os Direitos Humanos.
Construir uma Nação livre da Pobreza e uma nação em paz e tranquilidade é um objectivo que está ao nosso alcance: é uma herança que, com firmeza e com trabalho, podemos deixar à geração dos nossos filhos.
Para isso, temos de trabalhar em conjunto para fazer Timor-Leste uma Nação melhor.
Timor-Leste sente orgulho por ser um dos poucos países no Mundo que ratificou todas as sete convenções internacionais de Direitos Humanos.
Aderimos a essas convenções de promoção e de defesa dos direitos das pessoas, já apresentámos um relatório substancial, cumprindo dispositivos previstos nas convenções, e temos já um segundo relatório pronto e aprovado, que será submetido em breve às Nações Unidas.
A decisão tomada em 2002, pelo Estado timorense, de subscrever essas sete convenções resultou das nossas convicções de respeito pelos Direitos Humanos e do valor dos Direitos Humanos na construção de uma sociedade com Justiça.
A decisão do nosso Estado nasceu do respeito pelos valores da Liberdade, da Igualdade e da Justiça, um respeito que tem raiz na história da luta pela libertação e pelos direitos dos timorenses.
Eu tenho feito tudo e tudo continuarei a fazer – como presidente e como cidadão – para ultrapassar as dificuldades que a nossa Nação ainda tem para cumprir todas as obrigações das convenções dos Direitos Humanos.
Como Presidente e como simples cidadão de Timor-Leste sinto orgulho por contribuir para construir o meu país baseado no respeito pelos direitos, pelas liberdades e pelas garantias dos cidadãos. Por ajudar a construir um país baseado no respeito pelo Direito à vida e pela dignidade das pessoas, na recusa da pena de morte, da prisão perpétua e de outras formas de violência do Estado contra os cidadãos.
Sinto que os mais de 20 anos que lutámos e que resistimos – no meio dos maiores perigos e da maior violência – valeram o sacrifício, quando estamos a construir um país baseado na Liberdade, na Igualdade e no Direito à Vida e à Paz.
Sinto satisfação por construir a nossa Nação baseada na igualdade de direitos entre homens e mulheres, na igualdade dos cidadãos face à lei, na promoção dos direitos das crianças – os nossos cidadãos do futuro.
Mas também sei que ainda estamos longe de terminar este trabalho de garantir os Direitos Humanos em Timor-Leste.
Construído sobre as ruínas que nos deixaram em 1999, o nosso jovem Estado é baseado no Direito e nas liberdades civis e políticas, sem dúvida.
Mas falta ainda realizar muitos direitos sociais e direitos económicos.
Falta-nos ainda acabar com as situações mais graves de pobreza.
Falta-nos consolidar a estabilidade e a paz. Falta-nos ainda garantir uma atmosfera de confiança, para atrair os empresários, para ajudar a criar mais empregos, sobretudo para os mais jovens, e para ajudar a criar mais bem-estar para todos.
Temos também de construir - todos os dias - uma maior igualdade de direitos entre os homens e as mulheres. Temos de combater – todos os dias – a violência doméstica. Temos de garantir às nossas crianças uma educação melhor, e o direito a uma educação sem violência.
Temos de trabalhar para dar às nossas crianças e aos nossos jovens mais oportunidades de desenvolvimento equilibrado e de promoção económica e social.
No Dia dos Direitos Humanos, peço ao povo de Timor-Leste, aos homens e às mulheres, aos professores e professoras, aos jovens, para darem, todos os dias, o contributo do seu bom exemplo, para rejeitar a violência.
Quero pedir ao povo para contribuir, nas aldeias, nas escolas, nos mercados, nas famílias, em todas as circunstâncias, para uma vida tranquila e sem violência nas suas comunidades.
Respeitar melhor os Direitos Humanos no nosso país é um trabalho que não pode ser só do governo. É um dever do Governo, mas é também um dever de todo o povo. Só com a ajuda de todos podemos melhorar a vida do nosso país.
Como Presidente da República reafirmo o compromisso sagrado de, no exercício do meu mandato, assim como na minha vida de simples cidadão, continuar a fazer tudo para promover o respeito pelos Direitos Humanos, incluindo os direitos económicos, sociais e culturais, de todos os timorenses.
Contando com a vossa ajuda, renovo o meu compromisso de trabalhar sem descanso em favor do fim da violência, da paz, e da eliminação da Pobreza. Construir uma Nação livre da Pobreza será conquistar o mais difícil entre os Direitos Humanos.
Construir uma Nação livre da Pobreza e uma nação em paz e tranquilidade é um objectivo que está ao nosso alcance: é uma herança que, com firmeza e com trabalho, podemos deixar à geração dos nossos filhos.
Para isso, temos de trabalhar em conjunto para fazer Timor-Leste uma Nação melhor.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
New Oversight Office Expands Human Rights Monitoring
(July 26, 2006)
http://timor-leste.usaid.gov/PrintVersion/DGArchive28Print.htm
When the shooting stopped outside police headquarters in Dili on May 26, staff members from Timor-Leste's new watchdog office for human rights, governance, and corruption were among the first to visit the scene. The Provedor's Office has a strong monitoring mandate from Parliament and has expanded its human rights work to look into a range of complaints since the start of civil disturbances on April 28. The May 26 shooting of unarmed policemen under UN protection is one of the incidents that the office is focused on. As part of their work, staff members have already conducted more than 80 interviews and visited sites in 10 districts outside Dili.
The Provedor's Office was established last year with support from USAID and other donors to investigate reports of human rights abuses, corruption, and poor governance. It submitted its first annual report to Parliament on June 30, meeting the legal deadline despite the current political and social upheaval. The on-time submission sends a strong message that the office has not only continued to function throughout the crisis but also has rapidly increased the human rights monitoring component. The annual report includes a section on the recent events and also makes recommendations for strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the institution in protecting citizens’ rights. The report will be translated from Portuguese into Tetum and English and distributed widely.
"This report is very important for us, and we see it as an opportunity to have a 'dialogue' with Parliament and society about the establishment of the Provedor's Office and the plans and project which lay ahead of us in the near future”, said Provedor Sebastião Dias Ximenes. "I believe that this office is shaping up as an independent mechanism worthy of the trust of all [*parties*], including those who may want to raise their concerns in the areas of human rights violation, good governance, and corruption. We are responsibly exercising our legal powers and we are working very hard and intensively to improve and strengthen this institution on a day-to-day basis. I would like to reiterate here that the doors of the Provedor's Office are open to all."
Current USAID-funded activities in the Provedor's Office include human rights monitoring, data collection and analysis, and public assistance. Staff members have also mobilized a new monitoring team with a network of 10 human-rights-focused non-governmental organizations to assist in these operations. The Provedor's senior legal research specialist, public assistance specialist, and administration specialist are funded through USAID's partner, Management Sciences for Development (MSD). All are fully engaged as the office undertakes the tasks of human rights monitoring operations, site visits, statement collection, and reporting.
The office opened its doors to the public on March 22, 2006, after 9 months of intensive preparations. It had received 48 complaints even before the official opening, and has since received 38 more. All complaints received by the office are investigated and findings of possible criminal liability and complicity are forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor General for the filing of the appropriate indictment and prosecution.
USAID supported the establishment of the Provedor's Office and continues its funding through its partnership with MSD. The activities of the Provedor's Office help strengthen Timor-Leste's democracy by encouraging effective oversight of its institutions and protection for its people.
http://timor-leste.usaid.gov/PrintVersion/DGArchive28Print.htm
When the shooting stopped outside police headquarters in Dili on May 26, staff members from Timor-Leste's new watchdog office for human rights, governance, and corruption were among the first to visit the scene. The Provedor's Office has a strong monitoring mandate from Parliament and has expanded its human rights work to look into a range of complaints since the start of civil disturbances on April 28. The May 26 shooting of unarmed policemen under UN protection is one of the incidents that the office is focused on. As part of their work, staff members have already conducted more than 80 interviews and visited sites in 10 districts outside Dili.
The Provedor's Office was established last year with support from USAID and other donors to investigate reports of human rights abuses, corruption, and poor governance. It submitted its first annual report to Parliament on June 30, meeting the legal deadline despite the current political and social upheaval. The on-time submission sends a strong message that the office has not only continued to function throughout the crisis but also has rapidly increased the human rights monitoring component. The annual report includes a section on the recent events and also makes recommendations for strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the institution in protecting citizens’ rights. The report will be translated from Portuguese into Tetum and English and distributed widely.
"This report is very important for us, and we see it as an opportunity to have a 'dialogue' with Parliament and society about the establishment of the Provedor's Office and the plans and project which lay ahead of us in the near future”, said Provedor Sebastião Dias Ximenes. "I believe that this office is shaping up as an independent mechanism worthy of the trust of all [*parties*], including those who may want to raise their concerns in the areas of human rights violation, good governance, and corruption. We are responsibly exercising our legal powers and we are working very hard and intensively to improve and strengthen this institution on a day-to-day basis. I would like to reiterate here that the doors of the Provedor's Office are open to all."
Current USAID-funded activities in the Provedor's Office include human rights monitoring, data collection and analysis, and public assistance. Staff members have also mobilized a new monitoring team with a network of 10 human-rights-focused non-governmental organizations to assist in these operations. The Provedor's senior legal research specialist, public assistance specialist, and administration specialist are funded through USAID's partner, Management Sciences for Development (MSD). All are fully engaged as the office undertakes the tasks of human rights monitoring operations, site visits, statement collection, and reporting.
The office opened its doors to the public on March 22, 2006, after 9 months of intensive preparations. It had received 48 complaints even before the official opening, and has since received 38 more. All complaints received by the office are investigated and findings of possible criminal liability and complicity are forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor General for the filing of the appropriate indictment and prosecution.
USAID supported the establishment of the Provedor's Office and continues its funding through its partnership with MSD. The activities of the Provedor's Office help strengthen Timor-Leste's democracy by encouraging effective oversight of its institutions and protection for its people.
Friday, April 20, 2007
HUMAN RIGHTS TRAINING OPENS A NEW CHAPTER IN TIMOR-LESTE
http://www.tl.undp.org/undp/newsroom/News/news4.html
Dili, Timor-Leste, 16 February 2007
A group of twenty Timor-Leste nationals were presented with certificates after successfully completing a two-week training course on the principles of human rights in the country’s capital, Dili. It was facilitated by the UNDP, United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as well as the Irish Aid.
The graduates, who are staff members of the Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice (PDHJ), and the Human Rights Monitoring Network of NGOs (RMDH) were honored in a special ceremony on 16 February 2007, held at the compound of the PDHJ, where the training took place. “This is a testimony to your interest and commitment in human rights work,” Sebastiao Ximenes, the Provedor Dos Direitos Humanos e Justica, (Director PDHJ) stated during the closing ceremony of the event. He emphasized team spirit and collaboration between NGOs and the Provedoria, saying this was important in advancing human rights in the country. The PDHJ is the national human rights institution of Timor-Leste.
The participants have now acquired a clear understanding of the international human rights framework under the United Nations system, substantive knowledge of the core international human rights treaties, the reflection of rights and freedoms in the Constitution of Timor-Leste, as well as principles underlined in the Provedoria, and other human rights bodies in the country.
“We are happy to work with you in developing your skills in human rights,” remarked Katja Hemmerich the Acting Chief of UNMIT Human Rights and Transitional Justice Unit. “Both the Provedoria and human rights NGOs fulfill a very important function in protecting and promoting human rights in Timor-Leste.”
The training session was the first of a series of capacity-building activities under the three-year UNDP-OHCHR support project, Human Rights Capacity Building of the Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice. The inclusion of civil society actors in training sessions is a key element of the project, through which the Provedoria can perform its public outreach and education function while enhancing skills and knowledge of its own staff.
“The concept of human rights is still vague to many people” Aderito De Jesus, a human rights lawyer and facilitator said. “The main challenge in a workshop like this is to encourage participants to internalize human rights values in their practical, daily lives, seeing it as their role to protect and defend human rights at all times,” stressed Aderito, adding that an enthusiastic mood prevailed during the workshop.
Underscoring the commitment of UNDP in supporting the Provedoria, the Country Director, Akbar Usmani observed that the Provedoria had made significant strides in its work within a relatively short period of time. “You still have a long way to go but UNDP will walk the journey with you,” noted Akbar.
In comments echoed by many participants, Terrencia Maia who works as an investigator with the Provedoria said: “The two weeks of training have been a great learning opportunity. I now have a better grasp of the human rights framework that guides our work.” She called for more training programmes to benefit Timorese human rights practitioners.
Respect for human rights remain central in meeting the Millennium Development Goals and in fulfilling the aspirations of the UN charter.
Dili, Timor-Leste, 16 February 2007
A group of twenty Timor-Leste nationals were presented with certificates after successfully completing a two-week training course on the principles of human rights in the country’s capital, Dili. It was facilitated by the UNDP, United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as well as the Irish Aid.
The graduates, who are staff members of the Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice (PDHJ), and the Human Rights Monitoring Network of NGOs (RMDH) were honored in a special ceremony on 16 February 2007, held at the compound of the PDHJ, where the training took place. “This is a testimony to your interest and commitment in human rights work,” Sebastiao Ximenes, the Provedor Dos Direitos Humanos e Justica, (Director PDHJ) stated during the closing ceremony of the event. He emphasized team spirit and collaboration between NGOs and the Provedoria, saying this was important in advancing human rights in the country. The PDHJ is the national human rights institution of Timor-Leste.
The participants have now acquired a clear understanding of the international human rights framework under the United Nations system, substantive knowledge of the core international human rights treaties, the reflection of rights and freedoms in the Constitution of Timor-Leste, as well as principles underlined in the Provedoria, and other human rights bodies in the country.
“We are happy to work with you in developing your skills in human rights,” remarked Katja Hemmerich the Acting Chief of UNMIT Human Rights and Transitional Justice Unit. “Both the Provedoria and human rights NGOs fulfill a very important function in protecting and promoting human rights in Timor-Leste.”
The training session was the first of a series of capacity-building activities under the three-year UNDP-OHCHR support project, Human Rights Capacity Building of the Provedoria for Human Rights and Justice. The inclusion of civil society actors in training sessions is a key element of the project, through which the Provedoria can perform its public outreach and education function while enhancing skills and knowledge of its own staff.
“The concept of human rights is still vague to many people” Aderito De Jesus, a human rights lawyer and facilitator said. “The main challenge in a workshop like this is to encourage participants to internalize human rights values in their practical, daily lives, seeing it as their role to protect and defend human rights at all times,” stressed Aderito, adding that an enthusiastic mood prevailed during the workshop.
Underscoring the commitment of UNDP in supporting the Provedoria, the Country Director, Akbar Usmani observed that the Provedoria had made significant strides in its work within a relatively short period of time. “You still have a long way to go but UNDP will walk the journey with you,” noted Akbar.
In comments echoed by many participants, Terrencia Maia who works as an investigator with the Provedoria said: “The two weeks of training have been a great learning opportunity. I now have a better grasp of the human rights framework that guides our work.” She called for more training programmes to benefit Timorese human rights practitioners.
Respect for human rights remain central in meeting the Millennium Development Goals and in fulfilling the aspirations of the UN charter.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Human Rights Defenders - HRW
Excerpts: Human Rights Watch World Report 2007
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/eastti14856.htm
Timor-Leste’s nongovernmental human rights defenders operated freely and played an active role in lobbying the UN and government. There were no attacks on human rights defenders in 2006.
Timor-Leste’s Office of the Provedor started receiving complaints from the public in March 2006. The office has far-reaching powers to investigate and report on complaints against government officials and institutions, including human rights abuses by police, but suffers from a lack of human and other resources. As with other institutions in Dili, many of the office’s staff were affected by the year’s violence and unable to work, due to fear of remaining in the capital.
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/eastti14856.htm
Timor-Leste’s nongovernmental human rights defenders operated freely and played an active role in lobbying the UN and government. There were no attacks on human rights defenders in 2006.
Timor-Leste’s Office of the Provedor started receiving complaints from the public in March 2006. The office has far-reaching powers to investigate and report on complaints against government officials and institutions, including human rights abuses by police, but suffers from a lack of human and other resources. As with other institutions in Dili, many of the office’s staff were affected by the year’s violence and unable to work, due to fear of remaining in the capital.
Hasegawa's Introductory Statement
Introductory Statement by Mr. Sukehiro Hasegawa Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Timor-Leste 29 August 2005
http://www.unmiset.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/e4899f58093d13
6749256f0a003f1073/3788ff09b464dfdd4925709c00192bdc?OpenDocument
Let me now turn to the third component, support to democratic governance and human rights through the provision of ten human rights officers. As a key element of UNOTIL’s mandate, we have assigned six human rights officers to respective national State institutions, namely the Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior and Defence, Ministry of Education, the Office of the Provedor, and the National Parliament, in order to strengthen their capacity to protect and promote human rights at all level. We have also assigned five national human rights officers to State institutions to play an increasingly important role as part of the transition to a sustainable human rights development in Timor-Leste. I wish to stress that I personally follow the developments in this area closely and maintain a vigorous and constructive dialogue with key government and state actors to enhance our efforts.
I am delighted to report that the long-awaited Provedor for Human Rights and Justice has recently been sworn in by the National Parliament. This is a significant step toward enhancement of transparency and accountability in public administration, not only in the human rights area, but also in the fight against corruption. UNOTIL will extend maximum support to strengthening the technical and functional capacity of the Office of the Provedor as well as the Offices of the Inspector General and Prosecutor-General. UNOTIL is also prepared to assist in the creation of legislation to establish the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court, as envisaged in the Constitution, and other administrative courts of first instance.
Putting in Place Independent Oversight and Audit
1. Timor-Leste’s critical independent oversight mechanism, the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, opened its doors in March 2006. Following the promulgation of the organic law for the Office of the Provedor in April 2004, the Provedor was elected by Parliament in early 2005. The Provedor quickly appointed his two deputies, for human rights and anti-corruption respectively. Recruitment of the staff for the office is nearly complete, and the Provedor has already conducted an education campaign in the districts and in Dili. Per Article 27 of Timor-Leste’s Constitution, the Office of the Provedor will function as Ombudsman and Human Rights Commission. The mandate of the Provedor encompasses fighting corruption,1 promoting good governance and rule of law, protecting human rights, and redressing violations and injustice. The Provedor is appointed by and answers to Parliament and will undertake investigations in response to complaints from the public or requests from Government. The Provedor may make recommendations in a report to the entity affected. The recommendations of the Provedor are not backed by legal sanction but may include referral of a given matter to the Prosecutor General. The Provedor also has a mandate to mediate and conciliate between the complainant and the agency affected. The legislation stipulates that the Provedor shall keep the public informed so a major component of the Provedor’s activities will be public outreach and the promotion of human rights and good governance.
2. The establishment of the Office of the Provedor constitutes a clear and significant commitment to integrity and transparency in governance, but its effectiveness will depend on several factors. Many countries now have ombudsman’s offices, human rights commissions, or a combination of both. Experience has shown that the success of such entities depends on political support, adequate resources, public perceptions, functional competence, and how well they fit into the overall system of administrative regulation. 2 The fact that the Provedor is constitutionally mandated strengthens the office; however, the independence of the office would be further strengthened if its budget were derived directly from Parliament, or were otherwise protected, and the office had access to funds for day-to-day operations, at least through an imprest account. Staffing levels are a further constraint. The Provedor will require sufficient well-qualified staff to be able to deliver timely and thorough investigations, while also disseminating information. This will be particularly so if the Provedor assumes a large role in, for example, oversight of the armed services. Focusing on police oversight efforts under the auspices of the Provedor may be more efficient than the addition of a separate police oversight body but will require additional financial and human resources 1 The Provedor is planning to agree Memoranda of Understanding with, the Prosecutor General, OIG, Police and other relevant agencies with the aim of establishing close communication and coordination among them and avoid duplication of work. It will also be helpful to define corruption cases as distinct from cases of administrative malpractice and purely criminal cases not involving corruption. The OIG and Prosecutor General will need to notify the Provedor of all cases in their purview which appear to involve corruption so that the Provedor can determine whether to take them over.
2 World Bank, Using an Ombudsman to Oversee Public Officials, PREM Note No. 19, April 1999. for the Provedor. Budgeting and staffing levels may need to be increased once the level of demand for the services of the office becomes apparent.
3. The creation of independent oversight bodies to ensure professionalism and accountability on the part of the security forces remains a key governance challenge.
“Developing effective, professional, non-partisan defense and police forces…” is a stated goal of the NDP. Internal and external security understandably remains a continuing concern at the community level. Discipline and professionalism on the part of the armed services are critical to providing security, upholding the rule of law, maintaining good relations between army and police, and generating public confidence in the armed forces.
Any gains which may be made in establishing better relationships between the armed forces and communities will quickly be lost if there is a perception of impunity for those who commit disciplinary or criminal offences. Emerging evidence of unprofessional conduct highlights the need for independent oversight bodies for the security forces, as well as the development of adequate capacity for civilian management of the defense force.
4. While there has been commendable progress in the institutionalization of disciplinary systems for the police service, these could be further strengthened by clearer articulation of roles. The National Police of Timor-Leste (PNTL) falls within the Ministry of Interior. In keeping with the Organic Law of the PNTL, the Professional Ethics and Deontology Unit (PEDU) provides a complaints mechanism for the public and undertakes investigations. Minor breaches of discipline are handled within districts, while serious offenses are referred to PEDU. Where disciplinary review and appeal are concerned, there is some ambiguity, with overlap between the Inspectorate, established by the Organic Law for the Ministry of Interior, and the Superior Police Council, mandated by the Organic Law of the PNTL to be the final determining body on police complaints. Disciplinary review and oversight of the PNTL would be strengthened through clarification of the roles of these bodies, ideally when rules of procedure for both organs are developed. Protocols for interaction with the Office of the Provedor will also need to be developed. Clarification of the lines of operational authority between civilian officials in the Ministry and the PNTL command structure will reinforce the independence of the police force. The army, Falintil-Timor-Leste Defense Force, has developed an internal disciplinary code, but this has yet to be approved by the Ministry of Defense. Encouragingly, however, there have been inquiries into and hearings on some breaches of discipline. Meanwhile, the Office of the Provedor provides the only external oversight for the security forces. Consideration could be given to establishing an independent review commission for police complaints, as well as strengthening Parliament’s oversight role with respect to the security forces.
5. Ensuring independence of the audit of government accounts is crucial for enhancing governance. Timor-Leste’s Constitution allots the function of external audit to the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court. As as interim measure, the Ministry of Planning and Finance contracts the task to an external private auditing company, after which audit reports and the management letter are submitted to the Executive, and then to Parliament. While contracting is unavoidable in the short and medium term, contracting by the Ministry has serious shortcomings. It creates conflict of interest as the audit is paid for by the entity which is being audited, and there is no independent check on the scope and rigor of the audit. Nor does it contribute to local institution building for external audit. Recognizing that the establishment of the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court may take some years, arrangements are now being made to transfer the responsibility for the contract of the external auditor from the MoPF to the Court of Appeals (CoA). Until independent audit capacity is developed, the CoA will need support services to help manage the contract and interpret the audit results. A study to outline the necessary arrangements for the transfer and subsequent capacity building is planned for
2006. The CoA has incorporated the needs of the future High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court into its long-term human resource planning.
Box 12: Suggested Actions
• Ensure adequate funding of the Office of the Provedor with budget approved directly by Parliament
• Publish and submit to Parliament the Annual Reports of the Provedor
• Establish a credible independent audit function under the Court of Appeals, pending the creation of the High Administrative, Tax, and Audit Court
• Establish mechanisms for coordination between Ministry of Interior, PNTL, and Office of the Provedor
• Create independent review commission for police complaints.
http://www.unmiset.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/e4899f58093d13
6749256f0a003f1073/3788ff09b464dfdd4925709c00192bdc?OpenDocument
Let me now turn to the third component, support to democratic governance and human rights through the provision of ten human rights officers. As a key element of UNOTIL’s mandate, we have assigned six human rights officers to respective national State institutions, namely the Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior and Defence, Ministry of Education, the Office of the Provedor, and the National Parliament, in order to strengthen their capacity to protect and promote human rights at all level. We have also assigned five national human rights officers to State institutions to play an increasingly important role as part of the transition to a sustainable human rights development in Timor-Leste. I wish to stress that I personally follow the developments in this area closely and maintain a vigorous and constructive dialogue with key government and state actors to enhance our efforts.
I am delighted to report that the long-awaited Provedor for Human Rights and Justice has recently been sworn in by the National Parliament. This is a significant step toward enhancement of transparency and accountability in public administration, not only in the human rights area, but also in the fight against corruption. UNOTIL will extend maximum support to strengthening the technical and functional capacity of the Office of the Provedor as well as the Offices of the Inspector General and Prosecutor-General. UNOTIL is also prepared to assist in the creation of legislation to establish the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court, as envisaged in the Constitution, and other administrative courts of first instance.
Putting in Place Independent Oversight and Audit
1. Timor-Leste’s critical independent oversight mechanism, the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, opened its doors in March 2006. Following the promulgation of the organic law for the Office of the Provedor in April 2004, the Provedor was elected by Parliament in early 2005. The Provedor quickly appointed his two deputies, for human rights and anti-corruption respectively. Recruitment of the staff for the office is nearly complete, and the Provedor has already conducted an education campaign in the districts and in Dili. Per Article 27 of Timor-Leste’s Constitution, the Office of the Provedor will function as Ombudsman and Human Rights Commission. The mandate of the Provedor encompasses fighting corruption,1 promoting good governance and rule of law, protecting human rights, and redressing violations and injustice. The Provedor is appointed by and answers to Parliament and will undertake investigations in response to complaints from the public or requests from Government. The Provedor may make recommendations in a report to the entity affected. The recommendations of the Provedor are not backed by legal sanction but may include referral of a given matter to the Prosecutor General. The Provedor also has a mandate to mediate and conciliate between the complainant and the agency affected. The legislation stipulates that the Provedor shall keep the public informed so a major component of the Provedor’s activities will be public outreach and the promotion of human rights and good governance.
2. The establishment of the Office of the Provedor constitutes a clear and significant commitment to integrity and transparency in governance, but its effectiveness will depend on several factors. Many countries now have ombudsman’s offices, human rights commissions, or a combination of both. Experience has shown that the success of such entities depends on political support, adequate resources, public perceptions, functional competence, and how well they fit into the overall system of administrative regulation. 2 The fact that the Provedor is constitutionally mandated strengthens the office; however, the independence of the office would be further strengthened if its budget were derived directly from Parliament, or were otherwise protected, and the office had access to funds for day-to-day operations, at least through an imprest account. Staffing levels are a further constraint. The Provedor will require sufficient well-qualified staff to be able to deliver timely and thorough investigations, while also disseminating information. This will be particularly so if the Provedor assumes a large role in, for example, oversight of the armed services. Focusing on police oversight efforts under the auspices of the Provedor may be more efficient than the addition of a separate police oversight body but will require additional financial and human resources 1 The Provedor is planning to agree Memoranda of Understanding with, the Prosecutor General, OIG, Police and other relevant agencies with the aim of establishing close communication and coordination among them and avoid duplication of work. It will also be helpful to define corruption cases as distinct from cases of administrative malpractice and purely criminal cases not involving corruption. The OIG and Prosecutor General will need to notify the Provedor of all cases in their purview which appear to involve corruption so that the Provedor can determine whether to take them over.
2 World Bank, Using an Ombudsman to Oversee Public Officials, PREM Note No. 19, April 1999. for the Provedor. Budgeting and staffing levels may need to be increased once the level of demand for the services of the office becomes apparent.
3. The creation of independent oversight bodies to ensure professionalism and accountability on the part of the security forces remains a key governance challenge.
“Developing effective, professional, non-partisan defense and police forces…” is a stated goal of the NDP. Internal and external security understandably remains a continuing concern at the community level. Discipline and professionalism on the part of the armed services are critical to providing security, upholding the rule of law, maintaining good relations between army and police, and generating public confidence in the armed forces.
Any gains which may be made in establishing better relationships between the armed forces and communities will quickly be lost if there is a perception of impunity for those who commit disciplinary or criminal offences. Emerging evidence of unprofessional conduct highlights the need for independent oversight bodies for the security forces, as well as the development of adequate capacity for civilian management of the defense force.
4. While there has been commendable progress in the institutionalization of disciplinary systems for the police service, these could be further strengthened by clearer articulation of roles. The National Police of Timor-Leste (PNTL) falls within the Ministry of Interior. In keeping with the Organic Law of the PNTL, the Professional Ethics and Deontology Unit (PEDU) provides a complaints mechanism for the public and undertakes investigations. Minor breaches of discipline are handled within districts, while serious offenses are referred to PEDU. Where disciplinary review and appeal are concerned, there is some ambiguity, with overlap between the Inspectorate, established by the Organic Law for the Ministry of Interior, and the Superior Police Council, mandated by the Organic Law of the PNTL to be the final determining body on police complaints. Disciplinary review and oversight of the PNTL would be strengthened through clarification of the roles of these bodies, ideally when rules of procedure for both organs are developed. Protocols for interaction with the Office of the Provedor will also need to be developed. Clarification of the lines of operational authority between civilian officials in the Ministry and the PNTL command structure will reinforce the independence of the police force. The army, Falintil-Timor-Leste Defense Force, has developed an internal disciplinary code, but this has yet to be approved by the Ministry of Defense. Encouragingly, however, there have been inquiries into and hearings on some breaches of discipline. Meanwhile, the Office of the Provedor provides the only external oversight for the security forces. Consideration could be given to establishing an independent review commission for police complaints, as well as strengthening Parliament’s oversight role with respect to the security forces.
5. Ensuring independence of the audit of government accounts is crucial for enhancing governance. Timor-Leste’s Constitution allots the function of external audit to the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court. As as interim measure, the Ministry of Planning and Finance contracts the task to an external private auditing company, after which audit reports and the management letter are submitted to the Executive, and then to Parliament. While contracting is unavoidable in the short and medium term, contracting by the Ministry has serious shortcomings. It creates conflict of interest as the audit is paid for by the entity which is being audited, and there is no independent check on the scope and rigor of the audit. Nor does it contribute to local institution building for external audit. Recognizing that the establishment of the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court may take some years, arrangements are now being made to transfer the responsibility for the contract of the external auditor from the MoPF to the Court of Appeals (CoA). Until independent audit capacity is developed, the CoA will need support services to help manage the contract and interpret the audit results. A study to outline the necessary arrangements for the transfer and subsequent capacity building is planned for
2006. The CoA has incorporated the needs of the future High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court into its long-term human resource planning.
Box 12: Suggested Actions
• Ensure adequate funding of the Office of the Provedor with budget approved directly by Parliament
• Publish and submit to Parliament the Annual Reports of the Provedor
• Establish a credible independent audit function under the Court of Appeals, pending the creation of the High Administrative, Tax, and Audit Court
• Establish mechanisms for coordination between Ministry of Interior, PNTL, and Office of the Provedor
• Create independent review commission for police complaints.
Office of the Provedor and Corruption
www.unic.or.jp/new/pdf/T_Leste%20report%20sum.pdf
Excerpts:
The Office of the Provedor is a central element of the national anticorruption strategy.It has the mandate to investigate all complaints of corruption as well as maladministration and human rights. Its role embraces investigation, prevention and education in relation to these matters.
Currently, the Office has insufficient resources and expertise to carry out its
responsibilities effectively.We therefore recommend that additional resources be supplied to the Provedor so that it can become fully operational by June 2006; that the implementation plan of the Office be endorsed by the Administration; that qualified expert expatriate staff be recruited as soon as possible to work alongside Timorese staff; and that independent surveys of citizen attitudes and perceptions be conducted to provide benchmarks against which progress can be measured.
11. Establishing respect for human rights and protecting them is part of the mandate of the Office of the Provedor. To help ensure that Government is kept fully informed of human rights issues, a human rights advisory position has been established in the Office of the Prime Minister.We endorse this position and recommend that the organic law of the Office of the Adviser on Human Rights be made. It is clearly important that the Office establish relations with the Provedor’s Office and liaise with CSOs in order to keep abreast of community views.
Excerpts:
The Office of the Provedor is a central element of the national anticorruption strategy.It has the mandate to investigate all complaints of corruption as well as maladministration and human rights. Its role embraces investigation, prevention and education in relation to these matters.
Currently, the Office has insufficient resources and expertise to carry out its
responsibilities effectively.We therefore recommend that additional resources be supplied to the Provedor so that it can become fully operational by June 2006; that the implementation plan of the Office be endorsed by the Administration; that qualified expert expatriate staff be recruited as soon as possible to work alongside Timorese staff; and that independent surveys of citizen attitudes and perceptions be conducted to provide benchmarks against which progress can be measured.
11. Establishing respect for human rights and protecting them is part of the mandate of the Office of the Provedor. To help ensure that Government is kept fully informed of human rights issues, a human rights advisory position has been established in the Office of the Prime Minister.We endorse this position and recommend that the organic law of the Office of the Adviser on Human Rights be made. It is clearly important that the Office establish relations with the Provedor’s Office and liaise with CSOs in order to keep abreast of community views.
SRSG Hasegawa on the Provedor's Office
SRSG Hasegawa Delivers Accountability and Transparency Report to New Prime Minister Ramos-Horta
http://www.unic.or.jp/new/pr_timor_ramos.htm
Sukehiro Hasegawa, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General (SRSG) in Timor-Lese today presented the Prime Minister with a copy of a report on “Strengthening Accountability and Transparency in Timor-Leste” prepared by a team of international experts, who visited Timor Leste for that purpose late last year. The 62 page report was published in April 2006 but had to await distribution in a deteriorating security situation,Hasegawa said that he had impressed upon the new Prime Minister, Jose Ramos Horta, who took office yesterday, that, “implementation of this report could greatly help in his government’s gaining confidence of the Timorese people.”
The SRSG said that he urged the Prime Minister “to publish widely all reports produced by the Inspector General and take disciplinary actions; and to bring to the attention of the Prosecutor General all cases of criminal nature.”
Hasegawa said that Prime Minister Ramos-Horta, had “pledged his intention to place the highest importance in ensuring transparency and accountability in the conduct of his administration, and asked international assistance in strengthening the capacity of the Offices of the Provedor, the Inspector General and the Prosecutor General for the purpose of arresting the abuse of power and corrupt practices...."
The report, prepared by experts from the United Nations, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank and the government of Finland, recommends, among other things:
- law defining the role of the Inspector General; to include operational links with the Office of the Provedor.
- The Provedor’s anti-corruption plan should be endorsed and funded.
- A High administrative Tax and audit court should be established.
- Parliamentary practice should reflect more closely the constitutional authority and independence of the institution. And draft legislation submitted to it should be made publicly available, and interpretation services be strengthened.
- Priority given to training of civil servants on code of conduct and ethics and delegation of authority.
- A freedom of information law should be put in place. And government plans and programmes should be publicized more vigorously.
- Operational authority over police officers should rest with the Commissioner of Police and no one else.
http://www.unic.or.jp/new/pr_timor_ramos.htm
Sukehiro Hasegawa, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General (SRSG) in Timor-Lese today presented the Prime Minister with a copy of a report on “Strengthening Accountability and Transparency in Timor-Leste” prepared by a team of international experts, who visited Timor Leste for that purpose late last year. The 62 page report was published in April 2006 but had to await distribution in a deteriorating security situation,Hasegawa said that he had impressed upon the new Prime Minister, Jose Ramos Horta, who took office yesterday, that, “implementation of this report could greatly help in his government’s gaining confidence of the Timorese people.”
The SRSG said that he urged the Prime Minister “to publish widely all reports produced by the Inspector General and take disciplinary actions; and to bring to the attention of the Prosecutor General all cases of criminal nature.”
Hasegawa said that Prime Minister Ramos-Horta, had “pledged his intention to place the highest importance in ensuring transparency and accountability in the conduct of his administration, and asked international assistance in strengthening the capacity of the Offices of the Provedor, the Inspector General and the Prosecutor General for the purpose of arresting the abuse of power and corrupt practices...."
The report, prepared by experts from the United Nations, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank and the government of Finland, recommends, among other things:
- law defining the role of the Inspector General; to include operational links with the Office of the Provedor.
- The Provedor’s anti-corruption plan should be endorsed and funded.
- A High administrative Tax and audit court should be established.
- Parliamentary practice should reflect more closely the constitutional authority and independence of the institution. And draft legislation submitted to it should be made publicly available, and interpretation services be strengthened.
- Priority given to training of civil servants on code of conduct and ethics and delegation of authority.
- A freedom of information law should be put in place. And government plans and programmes should be publicized more vigorously.
- Operational authority over police officers should rest with the Commissioner of Police and no one else.
Training for the Provedor September 2005
Malaysian Human Rights Expert delivers training for the Provedor
http://www.unmiset.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/60325cf12626b2a349256f0a003ef7d8/
16cf73da06d677ae4925710e002c68c4?OpenDocument
A training programme for the Provedor Mr. Sebastião Dias Ximenes and his Deputy Silverio Baptista Pinto coordinated by the UNOTIL Human Rights Unit was completed on Friday 23 September 2005. The training was funded by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights arranged after consultation with the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF), of which Timor-Leste is now a candidate member.
he five-day training programme was delivered by Vice-Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Mr. Simon Sipaun who commented, “the programme is an important step on the never-ending journey to promote and protect human rights in Timor-Leste”. Mr. Simon also congratulated the Provedor on the strong legal mandate he has been given to promote and protect human rights in Timor-Leste. He also commented on the current process of drafting a National Human Rights Action Plan as demonstrative of a strong commitment by the Timor-Leste government to human rights.
During the training programme, practical advice was provided to the Provedor on establishing procedures for management and staff training, the drafting of internal procedures for receiving and investigating human rights complaints as well as education and promotion of human rights to the people of Timor-Leste. The training programme also focused on the importance of the establishment of good working relations with other state institutions such as the Prosecutor-General, PNTL, the Office of the Inspector General, the Courts and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Advisor on Human Rights. There was also emphasis on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions for the Office of the Provedor to function effectively and independently.
Provedor Sebastião Dias Ximenes stated that “the programme has been very useful to us. The discussions with the two members of SUHAKAM and the sharing of their experience in setting up a national human rights institution will help us in establishing a strategic plan for the human rights aspect of the mandate of Timor-Leste’s Office of the Provedor”.
UNOTIL has already provided one national human right officer to the Office of the Provedor. An International human right officer will shortly be provided to the Office of the Provedor in addition to other human right officers who will be provided to the National Parliament, the Office of the Advisor on Human Rights to Prime Minister and the Ministries of Interior, Defence, Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
http://www.unmiset.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/60325cf12626b2a349256f0a003ef7d8/
16cf73da06d677ae4925710e002c68c4?OpenDocument
A training programme for the Provedor Mr. Sebastião Dias Ximenes and his Deputy Silverio Baptista Pinto coordinated by the UNOTIL Human Rights Unit was completed on Friday 23 September 2005. The training was funded by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights arranged after consultation with the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF), of which Timor-Leste is now a candidate member.
he five-day training programme was delivered by Vice-Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Mr. Simon Sipaun who commented, “the programme is an important step on the never-ending journey to promote and protect human rights in Timor-Leste”. Mr. Simon also congratulated the Provedor on the strong legal mandate he has been given to promote and protect human rights in Timor-Leste. He also commented on the current process of drafting a National Human Rights Action Plan as demonstrative of a strong commitment by the Timor-Leste government to human rights.
During the training programme, practical advice was provided to the Provedor on establishing procedures for management and staff training, the drafting of internal procedures for receiving and investigating human rights complaints as well as education and promotion of human rights to the people of Timor-Leste. The training programme also focused on the importance of the establishment of good working relations with other state institutions such as the Prosecutor-General, PNTL, the Office of the Inspector General, the Courts and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Advisor on Human Rights. There was also emphasis on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions for the Office of the Provedor to function effectively and independently.
Provedor Sebastião Dias Ximenes stated that “the programme has been very useful to us. The discussions with the two members of SUHAKAM and the sharing of their experience in setting up a national human rights institution will help us in establishing a strategic plan for the human rights aspect of the mandate of Timor-Leste’s Office of the Provedor”.
UNOTIL has already provided one national human right officer to the Office of the Provedor. An International human right officer will shortly be provided to the Office of the Provedor in addition to other human right officers who will be provided to the National Parliament, the Office of the Advisor on Human Rights to Prime Minister and the Ministries of Interior, Defence, Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Role of Provedor: Translating legislation into actions
Closing Remarks by Dr. Mari Alkatiri, Prime Minister On Wednesday, 19 May 2004
http://www.etan.org/et2004/may/15-21/19closng.htm
"We will continue to put our best efforts to implement the laws and regulations on the ground, as we develop the capacities of the various agencies. The law on the Provedor for Human Rights and Justice has been passed by the Parliament and promulgated by the President. Also, we have made provision in the budget for establishment of the office of the Provedor and my Adviser on Human Rights has organized some preliminary information campaigns on the role of the office. The Parliament is responsible for the appointment of the Provedor. Once appointed, the Provedor will be responsible for the operation of the office including receiving complaints, conducting investigations, taking remedial actions and reporting on the work of the office to the Parliament. We will encourage the Parliament to proceed with the appointment of the Provedor expeditiously and provide the necessary support to the office of the Provedor, while recognizing the autonomy of these entities."
http://www.etan.org/et2004/may/15-21/19closng.htm
"We will continue to put our best efforts to implement the laws and regulations on the ground, as we develop the capacities of the various agencies. The law on the Provedor for Human Rights and Justice has been passed by the Parliament and promulgated by the President. Also, we have made provision in the budget for establishment of the office of the Provedor and my Adviser on Human Rights has organized some preliminary information campaigns on the role of the office. The Parliament is responsible for the appointment of the Provedor. Once appointed, the Provedor will be responsible for the operation of the office including receiving complaints, conducting investigations, taking remedial actions and reporting on the work of the office to the Parliament. We will encourage the Parliament to proceed with the appointment of the Provedor expeditiously and provide the necessary support to the office of the Provedor, while recognizing the autonomy of these entities."
The Provedor - AI's East Timor report 2004
Amnesty International's comments on the Office of the Provedor
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/tmp-summary-eng
Limited progress was made in developing a legal framework that would protect human rights and strengthen the nascent judiciary, police force and other key institutions. In this context, human rights could not be guaranteed, including the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Allegations of excessive use of force, misuse of firearms and other violations by the police were not always adequately or consistently addressed. The findings of a UN police investigation into two fatal shootings, allegedly by the police, in late 2002, was made public; no one was held to account for the killings.
Background
2003 marked the first full year of independence for Timor-Leste. Building and strengthening new institutions and developing policy in all areas continued to present a considerable challenge to the new nation. The UN peace-keeping mission, the UN Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET), continued to assist in the development of the National Police Service of Timor-Leste (PNTL) and the provision of interim law enforcement.
Human rights law
In April Timor-Leste acceded to a number of core international human rights treaties and instruments, including those relating to economic, social and cultural rights, the rights of women and children, and protection against torture.
Some progress was made in drafting national legislation on human rights, such as the law establishing an Office of the Provedor for Human Rights to provide oversight of government activities, the police and military, and the prison service. The Provedor’s Office had not been set up by the end of the year.
However, some new laws were not fully consistent with the Constitution or with international human rights standards. The Immigration and Asylum Law was adopted by Parliament in September despite a Court of Appeal decision that provisions restricting the rights to freedom of assembly and association were unconstitutional. It had not been promulgated by the President by the end of 2003.
Justice system
Weaknesses within the justice system, particularly lack of human resources, training and oversight of officials, continued to undermine the rule of law, security and human rights. The Court of Appeal began sitting in July for the first time in 18 months. Of the four courts of first instance, only one functioned regularly. Women and children faced particular difficulties in accessing the formal justice system. Police and prosecutors frequently referred criminal cases, including of assault and rape, to “traditional” or alternative justice mechanisms.
Suspects were held in pre-trial detention for extended periods, often for minor offences. In the first week of December at least one third of the 223 pre-trial detainees were held illegally after their detention orders had expired. Officials exceeded their authority and investigating judges failed to exercise their role in protecting detainees’ rights. Legal representation for detainees remained severely limited.
• Some 90 people, including women and children, were arrested by the armed forces after five people were killed in an armed attack on civilians in Ermera District in January. Many of those arrested were thought to have no connection with the attack, but were singled out because of their membership of a religious sect. Thirty-nine people who were subsequently transferred to prison custody were held illegally, initially without detention orders and later with orders issued by a prosecutor, not a judge as required by law. All were held beyond the legal limit of 72 hours before being brought before a judge. The detainees did not have access to legal representation until they first appeared in court.
• Carlos Ena, who was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity, including in connection with two murders in 1999, was released in September after 17 months in pre-trial detention. The Court of Appeal ruled his detention illegal because pre-trial detention should not exceed six months, except in exceptional circumstances not present in this case.
Police
The UN retained executive control of the police but had transferred command for all 13 districts to the PNTL by the end of 2003. The absence of a legal and procedural framework, inadequate training and lack of oversight hampered the PNTL’s development. Officers misused firearms in a number of incidents and were alleged to have assaulted suspects on more than 20 occasions.
Efforts to improve accountability resulted in the dismissal of several police officers. In one case, an officer was dismissed after beating and breaking the arm of an armed forces officer detained for assaulting him a few days earlier. However, investigations into, and sanctions for, police misconduct were generally not consistent or transparent.
A UN police investigation into the fatal shooting of two people, allegedly by police, in disturbances in the capital, Dili, on 4 December 2002 failed to identify those directly responsible. No one was held to account for the fatal shooting of another person, also allegedly by the police, one month earlier in the town of Baucau.
Past human rights violations
By December, indictments had been served against 369 individuals for serious crimes, including crimes against humanity, in connection with the independence ballot in 1999. Among those indicted were 281 people residing in Indonesia, including senior Indonesian military officials. Indonesia refused to transfer suspects for trial to Timor-Leste (see Indonesia entry).
Human rights violations during and immediately before the Indonesian invasion in 1975 were the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation.
AI country visits
AI delegates visited Timor-Leste in October to facilitate a workshop for human rights activists and PNTL officers on “Civil society and the police working together to protect human rights”.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/tmp-summary-eng
Limited progress was made in developing a legal framework that would protect human rights and strengthen the nascent judiciary, police force and other key institutions. In this context, human rights could not be guaranteed, including the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Allegations of excessive use of force, misuse of firearms and other violations by the police were not always adequately or consistently addressed. The findings of a UN police investigation into two fatal shootings, allegedly by the police, in late 2002, was made public; no one was held to account for the killings.
Background
2003 marked the first full year of independence for Timor-Leste. Building and strengthening new institutions and developing policy in all areas continued to present a considerable challenge to the new nation. The UN peace-keeping mission, the UN Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET), continued to assist in the development of the National Police Service of Timor-Leste (PNTL) and the provision of interim law enforcement.
Human rights law
In April Timor-Leste acceded to a number of core international human rights treaties and instruments, including those relating to economic, social and cultural rights, the rights of women and children, and protection against torture.
Some progress was made in drafting national legislation on human rights, such as the law establishing an Office of the Provedor for Human Rights to provide oversight of government activities, the police and military, and the prison service. The Provedor’s Office had not been set up by the end of the year.
However, some new laws were not fully consistent with the Constitution or with international human rights standards. The Immigration and Asylum Law was adopted by Parliament in September despite a Court of Appeal decision that provisions restricting the rights to freedom of assembly and association were unconstitutional. It had not been promulgated by the President by the end of 2003.
Justice system
Weaknesses within the justice system, particularly lack of human resources, training and oversight of officials, continued to undermine the rule of law, security and human rights. The Court of Appeal began sitting in July for the first time in 18 months. Of the four courts of first instance, only one functioned regularly. Women and children faced particular difficulties in accessing the formal justice system. Police and prosecutors frequently referred criminal cases, including of assault and rape, to “traditional” or alternative justice mechanisms.
Suspects were held in pre-trial detention for extended periods, often for minor offences. In the first week of December at least one third of the 223 pre-trial detainees were held illegally after their detention orders had expired. Officials exceeded their authority and investigating judges failed to exercise their role in protecting detainees’ rights. Legal representation for detainees remained severely limited.
• Some 90 people, including women and children, were arrested by the armed forces after five people were killed in an armed attack on civilians in Ermera District in January. Many of those arrested were thought to have no connection with the attack, but were singled out because of their membership of a religious sect. Thirty-nine people who were subsequently transferred to prison custody were held illegally, initially without detention orders and later with orders issued by a prosecutor, not a judge as required by law. All were held beyond the legal limit of 72 hours before being brought before a judge. The detainees did not have access to legal representation until they first appeared in court.
• Carlos Ena, who was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity, including in connection with two murders in 1999, was released in September after 17 months in pre-trial detention. The Court of Appeal ruled his detention illegal because pre-trial detention should not exceed six months, except in exceptional circumstances not present in this case.
Police
The UN retained executive control of the police but had transferred command for all 13 districts to the PNTL by the end of 2003. The absence of a legal and procedural framework, inadequate training and lack of oversight hampered the PNTL’s development. Officers misused firearms in a number of incidents and were alleged to have assaulted suspects on more than 20 occasions.
Efforts to improve accountability resulted in the dismissal of several police officers. In one case, an officer was dismissed after beating and breaking the arm of an armed forces officer detained for assaulting him a few days earlier. However, investigations into, and sanctions for, police misconduct were generally not consistent or transparent.
A UN police investigation into the fatal shooting of two people, allegedly by police, in disturbances in the capital, Dili, on 4 December 2002 failed to identify those directly responsible. No one was held to account for the fatal shooting of another person, also allegedly by the police, one month earlier in the town of Baucau.
Past human rights violations
By December, indictments had been served against 369 individuals for serious crimes, including crimes against humanity, in connection with the independence ballot in 1999. Among those indicted were 281 people residing in Indonesia, including senior Indonesian military officials. Indonesia refused to transfer suspects for trial to Timor-Leste (see Indonesia entry).
Human rights violations during and immediately before the Indonesian invasion in 1975 were the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation.
AI country visits
AI delegates visited Timor-Leste in October to facilitate a workshop for human rights activists and PNTL officers on “Civil society and the police working together to protect human rights”.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVEDOR - East Timor
Law No /2003
DE DIREITOS HUMANOS E JUSTICA
Taking into account Section 27 of the Constitution, which provides for the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, an independent organ in charge of examining and seeking to satisfy citizens complaints against public bodies, certifying the conformity of the acts with the law, preventing and initiating whole process to remedy injustice with power to undertake a review, without power of decision, and forwarding recommendations to the competent organs;
Taking into account Section 150 of the Constitution, which provides for the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the National Parliament, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister, one fifth of the Members of the National Parliament and the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica to request a declaration of unconstitutionality of legislative measures;
Further taking into account Section 151 of the Constitution, which provides for the President of the Republic, the Prosecutor-General and the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica to request the Supreme Court of Justice to review the unconstitutionality by omission of any legislative measures as deemed necessary to enable implementation of the Constitution;
Emphasizing the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms in Timor-Leste, and also the need to establish an effective rule of law in Timor-Leste;
Desiring to create and maintain a lean and effective public administration that is free from corruption and nepotism, and also increase the community’s sense of confidence in a just administration;
Further desiring to implement and promote a culture of efficiency, transparency, integrity, responsibility and accountability in Timor Leste’s public entities or agencies;
Recalling Timor-Leste’s obligation to defend citizens from any abuse of power by public entities, Further recalling Timor Leste’s obligation to observe and comply with customary international law and internationally recognized human rights and good governance standards, as laid down in international ratified Human Rights instruments;
Recalling the United Nations Principles Relating to the Status and Functions of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, also referred to as “the Paris Principles”, which provide for a broad mandate granted to in independent national institutions;
For the purpose of establishing the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica; Under these terms and pursuant to the provisions of 27, 150 and 151 of the Constitution of Timor-Leste, the National Parliament enacts the following text that shall have the force of law:
CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY
Part 1
Definitions of terms
Section 1: Definitions and Interpretation
For the purposes of the present legislation, the following words and/or expressions shall have the following meaning unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica” means an independent public body that combines the functions of a National Human Rights institution in the areas of human rights and justice, those of an Ombudsman in the area of good governance and public administration, and the functions of an anti-corruption agency.
(b) “Provedor” means the person appointed to the Office established by the present Law;
(c) “Fundamental rights and freedoms” means the rights and liberties referred to in Part II of the Constitution for Timor-Leste and interpreted in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(d) “Human rights” means the rights embodied in the United Nations instruments on Human
Rights, and includes the rights and freedoms set out in Part II of the Constitution for Timor-Leste;
(f) “International human rights standards ” means the internationally recognized human rights standards outlined under the United Nations instruments;
(g) “Class actions ” means actions whereby an individual or a group affected by a human rights violation is able to complain not only on his or her own behalf, but also on behalf of others who are similarly affected;
(i) “Act” means action, decision, proposal or recommendation made by the entities or agencies referred to in section 3.1. It does not include an act done in the discharge of a judicial or legislative function as specified in Section 3.3;
(j) “Omission” means a refusal or a failure to act;
(k) “ Public agencies or entities” include:
(i) the governmental departments and agencies, including the legislative and administrative branches of the administration, the judicial branch only to the extent of its administrative actions, Timor- Leste Police Service referred to as ‘PNTL,’ and the Defense Force for Timor-Leste referred to as ‘F/FDTL’;
(ii) the local government administration;
(iii) the governmental commissions and agencies;
(iv) state-owned companies;
(v) companies where the Government owns over 50% of the capital;
(vi) any other body as prescribed by law.
(l) “Public service or function” refers to a service or function that is normally under the duty and competence of the Government as set out in Section 115 of the Constitution for Timor-Leste, national laws and international instruments but which can be delegated or contracted to a private entity (i.e. provision of water or electricity);
(m) “Corruption” refers to the act of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value with the aim of deviating the formal and normal duties of a public service meanwhile influencing the action of a public official for satisfaction of one’s private interests; corruption presents itself in different forms such as bribery, conspiracy, nepotism, extortion, embezzlement, fraud and favoritism.
(n) “Collusion ”
(o) “Nepotism”
(p) “Maladministration” means
(q) “Good governance” means
(r) “ Mediation” means
(s) “Conciliation” means
(t) “Manifest injustice” means
(u) “Organs of sovereignty” means the President of the Republic, the National Parliament, the Government and the Courts as provided for in section 67 of the Constitution for Timor-Leste.
Part 2
General Principles
Section 2: Right of Claim
2.1 All legal and natural persons may file a complaint in the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica. Complaints may be made individually or collectively including through class actions.
2.2 The Provedor shall examine the complaints and address to the relevant bodies such
recommendations, as he or she seems fit to prevent or redeem injustice; the Provedor shall consider the complaints without the power to take decisions but only with the view to addressing recommendations to the relevant bodies, or settling the complaint to the satisfaction of the parties through mediation.
Section 3: Scope of Action
3.1 The Provedor shall exercise his or her functions notably with respect to the activities of the Government, the Police Service and the Prisons Service, the National Defence Force, public or private entities and organizations, regardless of their origin, fulfilling public functions and services or managing public funds or assets.
3.2 The Provedor shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:
(a) are contrary to law or regulation;
(b) are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
(c) are inconsistent with the general course of a public entity or agency’s functions;
(d) proceed from mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
(e) are otherwise irregular, immoral and devoid of justification.
3.3 The intervention of the Provedor in the activities of the organs of sovereignty performing their executive, legislative and judicial functions shall be limited. The exercise of these activities shall not be subject to the Provedor’s control and supervising powers, save insofar as their administrative activity as well as the acts that they perform in supervising the administration, are concerned.
CHAPTER II: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE
Part I Establishment
Section 4: Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica
4.1 The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica is hereby established by the promulgation of this Act; it shall set out its own rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions and duties. These rules shall be consistent with due process.
4.2 The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica is an institution established to protect and promote the human rights, fundamental freedoms and legitimate interests of natural and legal persons in Timor-Leste, when such rights and freedoms are violated by an act or omission of persons, public entities or private entities and organizations, regardless of their origin, fulfilling public functions and services, or managing public funds or assets.
Section 5: Nature
5.1Under the terms of the Constitution, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica operates as an independent statutory body and is not subject to the direction, control or influence of any person or authority.
5.2 In exercising his or her functions, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall act independently of Government, party politics and all other entities and situations which may be in a position to affect its work.
5.3 The Office of the Provedor shall have the power to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, as deemed necessary for and incidental to the performance of its functions.
Section 6: Office location
6.1 The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have its main office in Dili. The Provedor may establish additional sub-offices in Timor-Leste.
6.2 The public shall be granted free access to the offices of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica.
Part II
Personnel and Funding
Section 7: Composition of the Office
The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall be composed of the Provedor, Deputy (ies) Provedor, Provedor Officers and other staff members as deemed necessary to provide the Provedor with the necessary technical and administrative support.
Section 8: Deputy (ies) Provedor
8.1 The Provedor shall have the power to appoint one or more Deputies; he or she shall use transparent and objective criteria including integrity, independence, impartiality and adequate qualifications.
8.2 The Deputy (ies) Provedor shall be appointed for a renewable 2-years period; he or she shall take up functio ns before the President of the National Parliament, and make the following oath (or solemn declaration):
“I swear (solemnly declare) that in carrying out the functions entrusted to me as a Deputy Provedor, I will perform my duties independently and impartially. I will, at all times, act in accordance with the dignity that the performance of my functions requires.
In the performance of my functions, I will seek to promote respect for human rights, good governance and peace.
I will carry out my functions without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
8.3 The Provedor shall be empowered to delegate his or her powers to a Deputy Provedor to discharge the functions of the Office where the Provedor’s duties end or are temporarily discontinued.
Section 9: Other Staff
9.1 The Provedor shall be empowered to perform any act relating to the appointment and to the professional situation of the staff of the Office within the Labor laws and other applicable texts of Timor-Leste; he or she shall also exercise disciplinary powers in relation to the Office.
9.2 The persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall give their duty and loyalty to the Provedor and shall not receive instructions from any other source and/or person.
9.3 The Provedor and the persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall preserve and aid in preserving the confidentiality of matters that come to their knowledge in the performance of their functions and duties as established by the present Law. Such restrictions shall apply after separation from Office.
Section 10: Adequacy of funding for the Office
10.1The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have an annual budget sufficient to meet the needs of the Office, and adequate to maintain the independence, impartiality and efficiency of the Office; budgetary appropriations for the Office shall be automatically and regularly released.
10.2 The budget for the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos shall be prepared, approved and managed in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 2000/20.
10.3 The funds of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall consist of:
(a) all budgetary appropriations for the Office;
(b) all other moneys and funds lawfully received by the Provedor’s Office;
(b) all accumulations of income derived from any such money.
10.4 The Office of the P rovedor shall keep proper books of account and other records in rel.ation to the functions or activities of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, and shall prepare in respect of each financial year of the Office a statement of accounts in a form designed to:
(a) indicate monthly expenditures,
(b) provide data for up-to-date budget control,
(b) ensure correct use of the funds of the Office of the Provedor.
10.5 The accounts of the Provedor’s Office shall be audited by the Auditor General, and the
statements of accounts shall be submitted to the Speaker of the National Parliament.
CHAPTER III: STATUTE
Part I
Terms and Conditions of Appointment of the Provedor
Section 11: Appointment procedure
11.1 The National Parliament shall appoint the Provedor through absolute majority votes of its members.
11.2 The appointment may only fall upon a citizen who fulfils the conditions set out in article 12 of the present Law.
11.3 The National Parliament shall call for candidacies within one month of promulgation of the present Law, or within one (1) month of vacancy of the Provedor’s Office.
11.4 When calling for candidacies, the President of the National Parliament shall set up an internal Committee, which shall receive and consider the applications for the Provedor position; the internal Committee shall be comprised of one Deputy from each political party represented in the National Parliament; candidacies shall be open for forty –five days.
11.5 Procedures of the National Parliament interna l Committee shall be defined and prescribed by Act of the National Parliament within a month after the entry into force of this Law; the procedure shall be established in accordance with fairness, independence and transparency principles.
Section 12: Cri teria for appointment
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Provedor, unless he or she has:
(a) sufficient experience, maturity and qualifications in order to investigate and report on human rights violations, corruption and malpractice in the administration;
(b) proven integrity and is recognized for his or her standing in community as well as his or her high level of independence and impartiality;
(c) a sound knowledge of the principles of human rights, good governance and public administration.
Section 13: Appointment
13.1The Provedor shall divulge his assets and any other income before taking up functions.
13.2 The Provedor shall take up functions before the President of the National Parliament, and make the following oath (or solemn declaration):
“I swear (solemnly declare) that in carrying out the functions entrusted to me as a member of the Office of the Provedor, I will perform my duties independently and impartially. I will, at all times, act in accordance with the dignity that the performance of my functions requires.
In the performance of my functions, I will seek to promote respect for human rights, good governance and peace.
I will carry out my functions without discrimination on any ground such as color, race, marital status, gender, ethnical origin, language, social or economic status, political or ideological convictions, religion, education and physical or mental condition.”
Section 14: Incompatibilities attached to the Function
The position of Provedor shall be a full-time position and incompatible with:
(a) the holding of a representative Office;
(b) political activities such as an office in a political party or in a public office;
(c) any remunerated activity or position in a governmental office;
(d) the management or control of a body corporate, or any other body carrying on business for profit;
(e) the exercise of leadership or employment in a trade union, association, foundation or religious organization;
(f) the performance of the duties of a Judge.
Section 15: Privileges and Immunities attached to the function
15.1The Provedor and Deputy (ies) Provedor shall enjoy such rights, honours, precedence, rank, remuneration and privileges as a Minister and a Vice-Minister respectively.
15.2 Neither the Provedor the Deputy (ies) Provedor nor an emp loyee of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall be liable to an action, suit or proceedings for or in relation to an act done or omitted in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a power or authority conferred by the Co nstitution to the present Law.
15.3 The Provedor and/or the Deputy (ies) Provedor shall be answerable before the National Parliament for offences committed in the exercise of their functions and for clear and serious violation of their obligations derived from the present Law; for offences not committed in the exercise of their functions, the Provedor and/or the Deputy (ies) Provedor shall also be answerable before the National Parliament, and forfeiture of office shall only occur in case of a sentence of imprisonment.
15.4 It is incumbent upon the National Parliament to initiate the criminal proceedings following a proposal made by one-fifth and deliberation approved by a two-thirds majority of its Members.
15.5 All correspondence addressed or material and information furnished to, obtained and/or collected by the Office of the Provedor and/or its staff shall be immune from any kind of ensorship or other interference.
15.6 The premises of the Provedor shall be inviolable. The archives, files, documents,communications, property, funds and assets of the Provedor or in possession of the Provedor,wherever located and by whomever held, shall be inviolable and immune from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation and any other form of interference.
Part II
Tenure of Office
Section 16: Term of Office
16.1The Provedor shall be appointed for a period of four years and shall be eligible for appointment to one more term of four years through absolute majority vote in the National Parliament.
16.2 Once appointed, the Provedor shall remain in office until expiration of his or her mandate except where provided for under this Law.
16.3 The mandate of the Provedor is deemed to have expired in the following cases:
(a) expiration of the term of his or her mandate;
(b) death;
(c) resignation;
(d) proven mental or physical incapacity to carry out his or her duties;
(e) prison sentence for a criminal offence.
Section 17: Vacancy of the Office
17.1 In the event of removal from office or in the event the position of the Provedor becomes vacant for any reason such as death, resignation, suspension or permanent incapacity, the National Parliament shall, as soon as possible and for such time as it may decide, appoint a Deputy Provedor as interim Provedor. In any event, the National Parliament shall appoint a new Provedor within three (3) months of such vacancy.
17.2 Upon the expiration of the term of office, the Provedor whose term has expired shall continue to exercise his or her functions on an interim basis until a new Provedor is duly appointed.
Section 18: Removal from Office
18.1 Any motion for removal must have the support of a one- fifth majority vote of its Members for submission to the National Parliament. The National Parliament will consider and investigate the matter in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
18.2 The Provedor can be removed from Office by a two-thirds majority in the National Parliament, on the grounds of:
(a) acceptance and performance by the Provedor of an office, function or activity that is incompatible with the mandate of the Provedor as set out under Section 14 of the present Law;
(b) permanent physical or mental incapacity preventing him or her from performing his or her functions,
(c) proven incompetence;
(d) acts or omissions in gross contradiction with the terms of his oath.
18.3 The decision of the National Parliament shall be final except that the Provedor has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in case of lack of due process or breach of natural justice.
Section 19: Suspension from Office
Where criminal proceedings are filed against the Provedor and the latter is charged, the National Parliament shall decide through a two-third (2/3) majority of its Members whether or not to suspend him or her from office.
CHAPTER IV: FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES
Part I
Functions
Section 20: The functions of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos shall be:
20.1 To Inquire into and Investigate
(a) alleged or suspected violations or infringements of fundamental human rights and freedoms, abuse of power, maladministration, manifest injustice and lack of due process; and
(b) alleged or suspected nepotism, collusion and corruption including misappropriation of public funds or other public property;
20.2 To Monitor and Provide Advice
(a) The Provedor shall monitor the functioning of the Government, its agencies and private entities fulfilling public functions and services in accordance with his or her mandate, and shall submit to the Government, the National Parliament and any other competent body on an advisory basis, opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning the promotion and protection of human rights and good governance.
(b) The Provedor may request the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of legislative
measures, including unconstitutionality through omission in accordance with Sections 150 and 151 of the Constitution of Timor- Leste.
(c) The Provedor shall review national legislation, regulations and practices for consistency with customary international law and ratified human rights treaties.
(d) The Provedor may recommend the adoption of new legislation, the amendment of legislation in force and the adoption or amendment of administrative measures.
20.3 To Promote Human Rights and Good Governance
(a) The Provedor shall increase general awareness on human rights and good governance, including by making public statements, conducting information campaigns or using other appropriate means to educate the public and disseminate information regarding human rights and good governance practices.
(b) The Provedor shall make recommendations on the ratification of, or accession to, international human rights instruments, monitor the implementation of the obligations derived from those instruments, advise the Government on its reporting obligations under international human rights instruments and, where appropriate, recommend the withdrawal of reservations to those instruments.
(c) The Provedor may contribute to the reports that Timor-Leste is required to submit to United Nations bodies and committees, and to regional institutions and, where necessary, express an opinion.
(d) The Provedor may seek leave of the court to intervene in legal proceedings in cases that involve matters under his or her competence, including through the submission of amicus curiae briefs.
20.4 To Combat Corruption
(a) The Provedor shall investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public monies by officials, and take appropriate steps o remedy instances of corruption, including by forwarding reports resulting from such investigations to the Prosecutor-General.
(b) The Provedor shall develop activities for strengthening accountability in public administration, and in particular in infrastructure, procurement and public works sectors through ensuring public input and monitoring, and also developing information networks, sectoral strategies and other tools.
(c) The Provedor shall educate the public on corruption and legal rights of action by such means as the Provedor may decide, including the development and implementation of a strategic annual plan of actions, publications, lectures and symposia.
Part II
Powers and Duties
Section 22: Powers
For the purpose of performing his or her functions under Section 20, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have the following powers:
(a) to receive complaints;
(b) to investigate and inquire into matters under his or her competence;
(c) to decide not to take any further action;
(d) to invite a person to answer questions where it appears that person may have information relevant to the complaint;
(e) to have access in accordance with the law to any person, premise, document, equipment, good or information in connection with the complaint;
(f) to visit any place of detention in order to inspect the conditions of detention and conduct a confidential interview of the persons in detention;
(g) to refer a complaint to a competent jurisdiction or another recourse mechanism;
(h) to seek leave to appear during proceedings before a Court, a Tribunal, an Arbitrator or an administrative Commission;
(i) to act as a mediator and a conciliator between the complainant and the agency or entity which is the subject of a complaint, where the parties agree to submit to such a process;
(j) to make recommendations for redress in complaints brought before him or her, including recommendations on remedies and reparations;
(k) to provide advice including opinions, proposals and recommendations aimed at improving respect for human rights and good governance by the e ntities within his or her jurisdiction;
(l) to report to the National Parliament in relation to the findings of an investigation or in relation to his or her recommendations;
(m) to maintain confidentiality.
Section 23: Limits of powers
The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall not be empowered:
(a) to make decisions which determine or dispose of the fundamental human rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of persons; or
(b) to set aside, revoke or modify the decisions of the agencies or entities affected, or make compensation orders; or
(c) to investigate the exercise of judicial functions or challenge a decision issued by a Court; or
(d) to investigate the exercise of legislative functions; or
(e) to investigate a matter that is subject of an action before a Court, and has not yet been determined.
Section 24: Duties
24.1 To keep the public informed
The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall keep the public informed of the existence and mandate of its Office, and be accessible to any person who wishes to brin g an information, lodge a complaint or seek clarification on a matter.
24.2 To maintain the confidentiality
(a) The Provedor and the persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall preserve and aid in preserving the confidentiality of matters that come to their knowledge in the performance of their functions and duties as established by the present Law. Such restrictions shall apply after separation from Office but do not prevent the Provedor from exercising duties under Section 24.4.
(b) The provisions of Section 24.1 (a) shall not be so construed that the Provedor or any employee of the Office of the Provedor shall be compelled to produce any book, voucher or other document or to answer questions in any proceedings in a court of law or before any body or institution established by or under any law, in connection with information which came to his or her knowledge.
24.3 To keep the parties informed
Where the Provedor decides to conduct an investigation under this Law, he or she shall inform:
(a) the complainant (if any) pursuant to Section 27.4;
(b) the person alleged to be aggrieved, if not the complainant;
(c) the person to whom the investigation relates;
(d) in relation to an investigation relating to a department, the person holding or performing the duties of the Office of Head of the department, of his or her intention to make the investigation.
24.4 To cooperate
(a) The Provedor shall maintain close liaison with similar institutions, bodies or authorities in order to foster common policies and practices, and to promote cooperation.
(b) Where the Provedor deems that an effective and adequate judicial or administrative remedy provided by the law is available to the complainant, the Provedor may limit his or her intervention to directing the complainant to the competent authority.
(c) Where information received by the Provedor gives rise to a belief that a crime has been committed or the commission of a crime is imminent, the Provedor shall refer the case to the Office of the Prosecutor-General and share any information or documents that are in his/her possession or under his or her control.
(d) If the Provedor so refers the complaint, he or she shall forthwith give notice in writing to the complainant stating that the complaint has bee n so referred.
(e) The Provedor shall consult and cooperate with other persons and bodies or organizations concerned with the promotion and protection human rights and justice, the fight against corruption and the protection of vulnerable groups.
24.5 To report
(a) The Provedor shall report annually to the National Parliament on the performance of its functions.
(b) Where circumstances so require, the Provedor may decide to address the public directly or through the State owned media press or any other press organ, particularly to publicize his or her opinions and recommendations; the Provedor may also decide to issue ‘communiqués’ or publish information concerning the conclusions reached in cases or any other matter pertaining to his activity. Any publicity issued by the Provedor shall be balanced, fair and true.
CHAPTER V: COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCESS
Part I
Processes and Procedure
Section 25: Initiative
The Provedor shall act on the basis of a complaint or representation, individual or collective, or on his or her own initiative.
Section 26: Submission of complaints
26.1 Any legal or natural person, or their agent or representative, may complain to the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica about:
(a) alleged or suspected violations or infringements of human rights and freedoms, abuse of power, maladministration, manifest injustice, lack of due process and discrimination; and
(b) alleged or suspected nepotism, collusion and corruption including misappropriation of public funds or other public property;
(a) alleged unconstitutionality, including through omission, of an act of the Government, legislative measures, laws and other legal instruments;
(b) alleged inconsistency of laws, administrative instructions, policies and practices with customary international law and ratified human rights treaties.
26.2 The National Parliament, its parliamentary committees, as well as its Members may refer to the Provedor petitions or grievances that are submitted to any of the former.
26.3 Complaints shall be made orally or in writing, and shall include the complainant’s identity and contact address.
(a) Where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his or her agent, if he/she is able to sign;
(b) Where a complaint is made orally, the person to whom the complaint is made shall reduce the complaint to writing or assist the complainant in putting the complaint in writing, and shall append his or her signature and the signature or thumbprint of the complainant.
26.4 Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, where a letter written by:
(a) a person held in any place of detention; or
(b) a patient in a hospital or other institution, is addressed to the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, it shall be immediately forwarded unopened and unaltered to the Provedor by the person in charge of the place or institution where the writer of the letter is detained or in which he or she is a patient.
26.5 Where a person who may have laid a complaint under this Law has died or is for any reason unable to act for himself or herself, the complaint may be continued by his or her personal representative, or by a member of his or her family, or other individual suitable to represent him or her.
26.6 Complaints can only be submitted in connection with acts or omissions, which were committed after the entry into force of the present Law.
26.7 Complainants shall not be required to pay a fee in respect of the lodgment of a complaint, or in respect of any of the work of the Provedor, nor shall the Provedor receive any compensation from complainants in respect of his or her work.
26.8 Procedures before the Provedor shall be exempted from expenses and stamps.
Section 27: Preliminary Assessment
27.1 The Provedor shall, within 30 days of a complaint being lodged with his or her Office, notify the complainant, in writing, of the receipt of the complaint.
27.2 The Provedor shall, within 30 days of the complaint being lodged with his or her Office, make a preliminary examination of the complaint with a view to deciding upon its admissibility.
27.3 The Provedor may decide not to investigate or investigate further, if:
(a) the complaint is manifestly made in bad faith, unfounded or patently frivolous or vexatious;
(b) under the law or existing administrative practice, there is adequate remedy for the complaint, whether or not the complainant has availed himself or herself of it;
(c) the complaint is not within the mandate of the Provedor;
(d) the complaint is in connection with acts or omissions that were committed before the present Law came into force;
(e) the damages caused by the act or omissions have been effectively and adequately redressed;
(f) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, any further investigation is unnecessary.
27.4 The Provedor shall, within 45 days of a complaint being lodged with his or her Office, notify the complainant, in writing, of his or her decision to investigate or not to take further action on the complaint and the reasons for so deciding.
27.5 Notwithstanding Section 27.3, the Provedor may decide to inquire generally into a matter of his or her own initiative, or re-open the case if within 12 months after the refusal of the Provedor to investigate any complaint, fresh evidence in favor of the complainant becomes available.
Section 28: Mediation and Conciliation
28.1The Provedor shall be empowered to act as a mediator and a conciliator between the complainant and the agency or entity the subject of a complaint, where both parties agree to submit to such a process.
28.2 The objectives of a conciliation conference are to identify the matters at issue between the parties and to use the best endeavours of the Provedor to secure a settlement between the parties on the matter at issue.
28.3 The objectives of a mediation conference are to facilitate the parties reaching an agreement in settlement of the matter at issue.
28.4 Where one of the parties rejects mediation or conciliation, the Provedor shall conduct a full investigation and make recommendations on the case.
Part II
Investigation
Section 29: Investigation procedure
29.1The Provedor shall not investigate:
(a) a matter which is pending before a Court or judicial tribunal;
(b) a matter involving the relations or dealings between the Government and any other Government or an international organization;
(c) a matter relating to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
29.2 No writ of injunction shall be issued by any Court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Provedor under this Law, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica.
29.3 The investigation shall be conducted with due respect of rights and liberties of the persons involved; any investigation under this Law shall be conducted in private and a person who has been invited or required to appear before the Provedor shall be permitted to appear with, or be represented by, a legal representative.
29.4 No person shall be entitled as of right to be heard by the Provedor.
29.5 Where the Provedor decides to conduct an investigation under this Law, he or she shall inform:
(a) the complainant (if any) pursuant to Section 27.4;
(b) the person alleged to be aggrieved, if not the complainant;
(c) the person to whom the investigation relates;
(d) in relation to an investigation relating to a department, the person holding or performing the duties of the Office of Head of the department, of his or her intention to make the
investigation.
29.6 The Provedor shall give the entity or person concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorized the act or omission complained of, an opportunity to comment on any allegations contained in the complaint, and the representative of the entity or person concerned shall submit his or her comments within such time as the Provedor may specify.
29.7 In conducting investigations, the Provedor shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence or procedure, but shall act fairly at all times.
Section 30: Investigation related powers
30.1 An investigation shall consist of requests for information, inspections, examinations, inquiries or any other procedures that do not impinge upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.
30.2 Any person, any civil servant, any official of any public entity, any incumbent of any organ both civil and military subject to his or her jurisdiction under the terms of Section 3 above, shall collaborate with the Provedor and provide all informatio n that the latter might request.
30.3 For the purpose of an investigation, the Provedor may, by notice in writing, require a person:
(a) to appear before him or her, on a date and at the time and place specified in the notice;
(b) to disclose truthfully, frankly and fully information within his or her knowledge;
(a) to produce any object or items including documents and records, including electronic data, in his or her possession, custody or control, that the Provedor considers relevant to an investigation;
(b) to allow the Provedor complete access, inspection and examination in accordance with the law to any premise, document, equipment or good that the Provedor considers relevant to an investigation.
30.4 In the fulfillment of his or her functions under Section 30.3 below, the Provedor may request, in accordance with the law, an Investigating Judge of a competent jurisdiction of Timor-Leste to issue search and seizure warrants to enable relevant authorities to search premises and seize particular items considered relevant to a Provedor’s investigation.
30.5 The duty to cooperate shall not prevail where legal restrictions in respect of privileges and duties of confidentiality apply to these entities. If the Prosecutor-General certifies that the disclosure of information would be contrary to the law or the public interest, as such information would
(a) seriously harm the legitimate commercial interests of any person or body;
(b) prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the State;
(c) involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet, or of a committee of the Cabinet, the Provedor cannot require a person to give information concerning the matter, to answer questions concerning the matter or to produce the document, record or item.
30.6 Non-compliance with the duty to cooperate without lawful excuse shall constitute an offence, as provided for in Section 34.1 of the present Law.
30.7 The Provedor may pay to a person who has made a complaint is made and to any other person who attends and furnishes information for the purposes of an investigation under this Law, such amounts in respect of expenses properly incurred having regard to the rates applicable to the Courts.
Part III
Report and Recommendations
Section 31: Report
31.1 The Provedor shall after completing any inquiry or investigation, provide the person who laid the matter before him/her, if any, and the person or entity against whom the complaint, if any, was made with a detailed report on the findings, recommendations and outcome of such inquiry or investigation. The Provedor may make known to other persons findings, points of view, conclusions or recommendations in respect of a matter he/she investigated.
31.2 The Provedor shall, not later than 30 June of each year, submit to the National Parliament, a detailed report of his or her activities, initiatives, statistics on cases and the results obtained during the calendar year ending on the preceding 31 December. The report shall make recommendations concerning the reforms and other measures, whether legal, political, administrative or otherwise which could be taken to achieve the objectives of the Provedor, prevent or redress human rights violations and respond to the needs of fairness, integrity, accountability, transparency and responsibility in public administration. The report shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste or any means accessible to the general public.
31.3 In addition to the annual report contemplated in Section 31.2 above, the Provedor may submit to the National Parliament special reports on cases or matters of a serious nature, if deemed fit and necessary.
31.4 The Provedor may, from time to time, in the public interest or in the interests of any person or entity, publish reports relating generally to the exercise of his or her functions or to any particular cases or situations investigated under this Law.
Section 32: Recommendations
(a) The Provedor shall determine the causes of violation, abuse, mismanagement, fraud and corruption in the public entity, and make recommendations for their correction, prevention and their elimination and the observance of high standards of respect for human rights rule of law, ethics and efficiency.
(b) The Provedor’s recommendations shall be addressed to the organ that has the power to correct and redress the irregular act or situation.
(c) The organ to which a recommendation is addressed must, within 60 days, inform the Provedor of the extent to which the recommendation has been acted upon or implemented.
(d) Where the recommendation has not been acted upon or implemented, the Provedor may report such failure to the National Parliament as provided for in Sections 24.5 and 31.3 above.
Article 33: Absence of Appeal
No appeal lies against the recommendations of the Provedor.
Part IV
Offences
Article 34: General Offences
34.1 It shall be an offence for any person to:
(a) knowingly hinder the Office of the Provedor in the fulfillment or execution of its powers, obligations and duties under the present Law;
(b) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an order issued by the Provedor to appear and/or answer questions at a specified place, date and time;
(c) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an order issued by the Office of the Provedor to produce any object or item in his or her possession, custody or control;
(d) willfully disclose any confidential information in contravention of the present Law, except in cases provided for in article 24.2.
34.2 Any person who commits any of the acts listed in article 34.1 shall be guilty of an offence and may be liable to a fine not to exceed US 3,000 dollars.
Article 35: Other Offences
35.1 It shall be a serious offence for any person to:
(a) perform any act aimed at improperly influencing the Office of the Provedor;
(b) threaten, intimidate or improperly influence any person who has cooperated with the Office of the Provedor or is intending to cooperate with the Office of the Provedor;
(c) act by malice or gross bad faith while filing a completely unwarranted and false complaint against any government official or employee.
35.2 Any person who commits any of the acts listed in article 35.1 shall be guilty of an offence and may be liable to a fine not to exceed US 3,000 dollars and a term of imprisonment not to exceed one (1) year.
35.3 Any delay or refusal to comply with the request of the Provedor shall constitute ground for administrative disciplinary action against the Officer or employee to whom it was addressed.
Part V
Miscellaneous
Section 36: Victimization
36.1 No person shall be liable to prosecution for an offence under enactment by reason of his or her compliance with a requirement of the Provedor under this section. Absence from work shall be deemed justified where it stems from the duty to be present before the Provedor.
36.2 No person, or a relative or associate to that person, shall be unfairly treated in their employment or by any other means by reason of his or her cooperation with the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, or by taking any action under or by reference to this Law.
Section 37: Implementation
Any supplementary provisions, necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Law may be specified by Directive.
Section 38: Entry into Force
The present Law shall enter into force upon signature.
Passed on_________ 2003
DE DIREITOS HUMANOS E JUSTICA
Taking into account Section 27 of the Constitution, which provides for the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, an independent organ in charge of examining and seeking to satisfy citizens complaints against public bodies, certifying the conformity of the acts with the law, preventing and initiating whole process to remedy injustice with power to undertake a review, without power of decision, and forwarding recommendations to the competent organs;
Taking into account Section 150 of the Constitution, which provides for the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the National Parliament, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister, one fifth of the Members of the National Parliament and the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica to request a declaration of unconstitutionality of legislative measures;
Further taking into account Section 151 of the Constitution, which provides for the President of the Republic, the Prosecutor-General and the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica to request the Supreme Court of Justice to review the unconstitutionality by omission of any legislative measures as deemed necessary to enable implementation of the Constitution;
Emphasizing the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms in Timor-Leste, and also the need to establish an effective rule of law in Timor-Leste;
Desiring to create and maintain a lean and effective public administration that is free from corruption and nepotism, and also increase the community’s sense of confidence in a just administration;
Further desiring to implement and promote a culture of efficiency, transparency, integrity, responsibility and accountability in Timor Leste’s public entities or agencies;
Recalling Timor-Leste’s obligation to defend citizens from any abuse of power by public entities, Further recalling Timor Leste’s obligation to observe and comply with customary international law and internationally recognized human rights and good governance standards, as laid down in international ratified Human Rights instruments;
Recalling the United Nations Principles Relating to the Status and Functions of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, also referred to as “the Paris Principles”, which provide for a broad mandate granted to in independent national institutions;
For the purpose of establishing the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica; Under these terms and pursuant to the provisions of 27, 150 and 151 of the Constitution of Timor-Leste, the National Parliament enacts the following text that shall have the force of law:
CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY
Part 1
Definitions of terms
Section 1: Definitions and Interpretation
For the purposes of the present legislation, the following words and/or expressions shall have the following meaning unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica” means an independent public body that combines the functions of a National Human Rights institution in the areas of human rights and justice, those of an Ombudsman in the area of good governance and public administration, and the functions of an anti-corruption agency.
(b) “Provedor” means the person appointed to the Office established by the present Law;
(c) “Fundamental rights and freedoms” means the rights and liberties referred to in Part II of the Constitution for Timor-Leste and interpreted in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(d) “Human rights” means the rights embodied in the United Nations instruments on Human
Rights, and includes the rights and freedoms set out in Part II of the Constitution for Timor-Leste;
(f) “International human rights standards ” means the internationally recognized human rights standards outlined under the United Nations instruments;
(g) “Class actions ” means actions whereby an individual or a group affected by a human rights violation is able to complain not only on his or her own behalf, but also on behalf of others who are similarly affected;
(i) “Act” means action, decision, proposal or recommendation made by the entities or agencies referred to in section 3.1. It does not include an act done in the discharge of a judicial or legislative function as specified in Section 3.3;
(j) “Omission” means a refusal or a failure to act;
(k) “ Public agencies or entities” include:
(i) the governmental departments and agencies, including the legislative and administrative branches of the administration, the judicial branch only to the extent of its administrative actions, Timor- Leste Police Service referred to as ‘PNTL,’ and the Defense Force for Timor-Leste referred to as ‘F/FDTL’;
(ii) the local government administration;
(iii) the governmental commissions and agencies;
(iv) state-owned companies;
(v) companies where the Government owns over 50% of the capital;
(vi) any other body as prescribed by law.
(l) “Public service or function” refers to a service or function that is normally under the duty and competence of the Government as set out in Section 115 of the Constitution for Timor-Leste, national laws and international instruments but which can be delegated or contracted to a private entity (i.e. provision of water or electricity);
(m) “Corruption” refers to the act of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value with the aim of deviating the formal and normal duties of a public service meanwhile influencing the action of a public official for satisfaction of one’s private interests; corruption presents itself in different forms such as bribery, conspiracy, nepotism, extortion, embezzlement, fraud and favoritism.
(n) “Collusion ”
(o) “Nepotism”
(p) “Maladministration” means
(q) “Good governance” means
(r) “ Mediation” means
(s) “Conciliation” means
(t) “Manifest injustice” means
(u) “Organs of sovereignty” means the President of the Republic, the National Parliament, the Government and the Courts as provided for in section 67 of the Constitution for Timor-Leste.
Part 2
General Principles
Section 2: Right of Claim
2.1 All legal and natural persons may file a complaint in the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica. Complaints may be made individually or collectively including through class actions.
2.2 The Provedor shall examine the complaints and address to the relevant bodies such
recommendations, as he or she seems fit to prevent or redeem injustice; the Provedor shall consider the complaints without the power to take decisions but only with the view to addressing recommendations to the relevant bodies, or settling the complaint to the satisfaction of the parties through mediation.
Section 3: Scope of Action
3.1 The Provedor shall exercise his or her functions notably with respect to the activities of the Government, the Police Service and the Prisons Service, the National Defence Force, public or private entities and organizations, regardless of their origin, fulfilling public functions and services or managing public funds or assets.
3.2 The Provedor shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:
(a) are contrary to law or regulation;
(b) are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
(c) are inconsistent with the general course of a public entity or agency’s functions;
(d) proceed from mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
(e) are otherwise irregular, immoral and devoid of justification.
3.3 The intervention of the Provedor in the activities of the organs of sovereignty performing their executive, legislative and judicial functions shall be limited. The exercise of these activities shall not be subject to the Provedor’s control and supervising powers, save insofar as their administrative activity as well as the acts that they perform in supervising the administration, are concerned.
CHAPTER II: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE
Part I Establishment
Section 4: Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica
4.1 The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica is hereby established by the promulgation of this Act; it shall set out its own rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions and duties. These rules shall be consistent with due process.
4.2 The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica is an institution established to protect and promote the human rights, fundamental freedoms and legitimate interests of natural and legal persons in Timor-Leste, when such rights and freedoms are violated by an act or omission of persons, public entities or private entities and organizations, regardless of their origin, fulfilling public functions and services, or managing public funds or assets.
Section 5: Nature
5.1Under the terms of the Constitution, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica operates as an independent statutory body and is not subject to the direction, control or influence of any person or authority.
5.2 In exercising his or her functions, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall act independently of Government, party politics and all other entities and situations which may be in a position to affect its work.
5.3 The Office of the Provedor shall have the power to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, as deemed necessary for and incidental to the performance of its functions.
Section 6: Office location
6.1 The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have its main office in Dili. The Provedor may establish additional sub-offices in Timor-Leste.
6.2 The public shall be granted free access to the offices of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica.
Part II
Personnel and Funding
Section 7: Composition of the Office
The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall be composed of the Provedor, Deputy (ies) Provedor, Provedor Officers and other staff members as deemed necessary to provide the Provedor with the necessary technical and administrative support.
Section 8: Deputy (ies) Provedor
8.1 The Provedor shall have the power to appoint one or more Deputies; he or she shall use transparent and objective criteria including integrity, independence, impartiality and adequate qualifications.
8.2 The Deputy (ies) Provedor shall be appointed for a renewable 2-years period; he or she shall take up functio ns before the President of the National Parliament, and make the following oath (or solemn declaration):
“I swear (solemnly declare) that in carrying out the functions entrusted to me as a Deputy Provedor, I will perform my duties independently and impartially. I will, at all times, act in accordance with the dignity that the performance of my functions requires.
In the performance of my functions, I will seek to promote respect for human rights, good governance and peace.
I will carry out my functions without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
8.3 The Provedor shall be empowered to delegate his or her powers to a Deputy Provedor to discharge the functions of the Office where the Provedor’s duties end or are temporarily discontinued.
Section 9: Other Staff
9.1 The Provedor shall be empowered to perform any act relating to the appointment and to the professional situation of the staff of the Office within the Labor laws and other applicable texts of Timor-Leste; he or she shall also exercise disciplinary powers in relation to the Office.
9.2 The persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall give their duty and loyalty to the Provedor and shall not receive instructions from any other source and/or person.
9.3 The Provedor and the persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall preserve and aid in preserving the confidentiality of matters that come to their knowledge in the performance of their functions and duties as established by the present Law. Such restrictions shall apply after separation from Office.
Section 10: Adequacy of funding for the Office
10.1The Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have an annual budget sufficient to meet the needs of the Office, and adequate to maintain the independence, impartiality and efficiency of the Office; budgetary appropriations for the Office shall be automatically and regularly released.
10.2 The budget for the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos shall be prepared, approved and managed in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 2000/20.
10.3 The funds of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall consist of:
(a) all budgetary appropriations for the Office;
(b) all other moneys and funds lawfully received by the Provedor’s Office;
(b) all accumulations of income derived from any such money.
10.4 The Office of the P rovedor shall keep proper books of account and other records in rel.ation to the functions or activities of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, and shall prepare in respect of each financial year of the Office a statement of accounts in a form designed to:
(a) indicate monthly expenditures,
(b) provide data for up-to-date budget control,
(b) ensure correct use of the funds of the Office of the Provedor.
10.5 The accounts of the Provedor’s Office shall be audited by the Auditor General, and the
statements of accounts shall be submitted to the Speaker of the National Parliament.
CHAPTER III: STATUTE
Part I
Terms and Conditions of Appointment of the Provedor
Section 11: Appointment procedure
11.1 The National Parliament shall appoint the Provedor through absolute majority votes of its members.
11.2 The appointment may only fall upon a citizen who fulfils the conditions set out in article 12 of the present Law.
11.3 The National Parliament shall call for candidacies within one month of promulgation of the present Law, or within one (1) month of vacancy of the Provedor’s Office.
11.4 When calling for candidacies, the President of the National Parliament shall set up an internal Committee, which shall receive and consider the applications for the Provedor position; the internal Committee shall be comprised of one Deputy from each political party represented in the National Parliament; candidacies shall be open for forty –five days.
11.5 Procedures of the National Parliament interna l Committee shall be defined and prescribed by Act of the National Parliament within a month after the entry into force of this Law; the procedure shall be established in accordance with fairness, independence and transparency principles.
Section 12: Cri teria for appointment
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Provedor, unless he or she has:
(a) sufficient experience, maturity and qualifications in order to investigate and report on human rights violations, corruption and malpractice in the administration;
(b) proven integrity and is recognized for his or her standing in community as well as his or her high level of independence and impartiality;
(c) a sound knowledge of the principles of human rights, good governance and public administration.
Section 13: Appointment
13.1The Provedor shall divulge his assets and any other income before taking up functions.
13.2 The Provedor shall take up functions before the President of the National Parliament, and make the following oath (or solemn declaration):
“I swear (solemnly declare) that in carrying out the functions entrusted to me as a member of the Office of the Provedor, I will perform my duties independently and impartially. I will, at all times, act in accordance with the dignity that the performance of my functions requires.
In the performance of my functions, I will seek to promote respect for human rights, good governance and peace.
I will carry out my functions without discrimination on any ground such as color, race, marital status, gender, ethnical origin, language, social or economic status, political or ideological convictions, religion, education and physical or mental condition.”
Section 14: Incompatibilities attached to the Function
The position of Provedor shall be a full-time position and incompatible with:
(a) the holding of a representative Office;
(b) political activities such as an office in a political party or in a public office;
(c) any remunerated activity or position in a governmental office;
(d) the management or control of a body corporate, or any other body carrying on business for profit;
(e) the exercise of leadership or employment in a trade union, association, foundation or religious organization;
(f) the performance of the duties of a Judge.
Section 15: Privileges and Immunities attached to the function
15.1The Provedor and Deputy (ies) Provedor shall enjoy such rights, honours, precedence, rank, remuneration and privileges as a Minister and a Vice-Minister respectively.
15.2 Neither the Provedor the Deputy (ies) Provedor nor an emp loyee of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall be liable to an action, suit or proceedings for or in relation to an act done or omitted in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a power or authority conferred by the Co nstitution to the present Law.
15.3 The Provedor and/or the Deputy (ies) Provedor shall be answerable before the National Parliament for offences committed in the exercise of their functions and for clear and serious violation of their obligations derived from the present Law; for offences not committed in the exercise of their functions, the Provedor and/or the Deputy (ies) Provedor shall also be answerable before the National Parliament, and forfeiture of office shall only occur in case of a sentence of imprisonment.
15.4 It is incumbent upon the National Parliament to initiate the criminal proceedings following a proposal made by one-fifth and deliberation approved by a two-thirds majority of its Members.
15.5 All correspondence addressed or material and information furnished to, obtained and/or collected by the Office of the Provedor and/or its staff shall be immune from any kind of ensorship or other interference.
15.6 The premises of the Provedor shall be inviolable. The archives, files, documents,communications, property, funds and assets of the Provedor or in possession of the Provedor,wherever located and by whomever held, shall be inviolable and immune from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation and any other form of interference.
Part II
Tenure of Office
Section 16: Term of Office
16.1The Provedor shall be appointed for a period of four years and shall be eligible for appointment to one more term of four years through absolute majority vote in the National Parliament.
16.2 Once appointed, the Provedor shall remain in office until expiration of his or her mandate except where provided for under this Law.
16.3 The mandate of the Provedor is deemed to have expired in the following cases:
(a) expiration of the term of his or her mandate;
(b) death;
(c) resignation;
(d) proven mental or physical incapacity to carry out his or her duties;
(e) prison sentence for a criminal offence.
Section 17: Vacancy of the Office
17.1 In the event of removal from office or in the event the position of the Provedor becomes vacant for any reason such as death, resignation, suspension or permanent incapacity, the National Parliament shall, as soon as possible and for such time as it may decide, appoint a Deputy Provedor as interim Provedor. In any event, the National Parliament shall appoint a new Provedor within three (3) months of such vacancy.
17.2 Upon the expiration of the term of office, the Provedor whose term has expired shall continue to exercise his or her functions on an interim basis until a new Provedor is duly appointed.
Section 18: Removal from Office
18.1 Any motion for removal must have the support of a one- fifth majority vote of its Members for submission to the National Parliament. The National Parliament will consider and investigate the matter in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
18.2 The Provedor can be removed from Office by a two-thirds majority in the National Parliament, on the grounds of:
(a) acceptance and performance by the Provedor of an office, function or activity that is incompatible with the mandate of the Provedor as set out under Section 14 of the present Law;
(b) permanent physical or mental incapacity preventing him or her from performing his or her functions,
(c) proven incompetence;
(d) acts or omissions in gross contradiction with the terms of his oath.
18.3 The decision of the National Parliament shall be final except that the Provedor has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in case of lack of due process or breach of natural justice.
Section 19: Suspension from Office
Where criminal proceedings are filed against the Provedor and the latter is charged, the National Parliament shall decide through a two-third (2/3) majority of its Members whether or not to suspend him or her from office.
CHAPTER IV: FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES
Part I
Functions
Section 20: The functions of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos shall be:
20.1 To Inquire into and Investigate
(a) alleged or suspected violations or infringements of fundamental human rights and freedoms, abuse of power, maladministration, manifest injustice and lack of due process; and
(b) alleged or suspected nepotism, collusion and corruption including misappropriation of public funds or other public property;
20.2 To Monitor and Provide Advice
(a) The Provedor shall monitor the functioning of the Government, its agencies and private entities fulfilling public functions and services in accordance with his or her mandate, and shall submit to the Government, the National Parliament and any other competent body on an advisory basis, opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning the promotion and protection of human rights and good governance.
(b) The Provedor may request the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of legislative
measures, including unconstitutionality through omission in accordance with Sections 150 and 151 of the Constitution of Timor- Leste.
(c) The Provedor shall review national legislation, regulations and practices for consistency with customary international law and ratified human rights treaties.
(d) The Provedor may recommend the adoption of new legislation, the amendment of legislation in force and the adoption or amendment of administrative measures.
20.3 To Promote Human Rights and Good Governance
(a) The Provedor shall increase general awareness on human rights and good governance, including by making public statements, conducting information campaigns or using other appropriate means to educate the public and disseminate information regarding human rights and good governance practices.
(b) The Provedor shall make recommendations on the ratification of, or accession to, international human rights instruments, monitor the implementation of the obligations derived from those instruments, advise the Government on its reporting obligations under international human rights instruments and, where appropriate, recommend the withdrawal of reservations to those instruments.
(c) The Provedor may contribute to the reports that Timor-Leste is required to submit to United Nations bodies and committees, and to regional institutions and, where necessary, express an opinion.
(d) The Provedor may seek leave of the court to intervene in legal proceedings in cases that involve matters under his or her competence, including through the submission of amicus curiae briefs.
20.4 To Combat Corruption
(a) The Provedor shall investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public monies by officials, and take appropriate steps o remedy instances of corruption, including by forwarding reports resulting from such investigations to the Prosecutor-General.
(b) The Provedor shall develop activities for strengthening accountability in public administration, and in particular in infrastructure, procurement and public works sectors through ensuring public input and monitoring, and also developing information networks, sectoral strategies and other tools.
(c) The Provedor shall educate the public on corruption and legal rights of action by such means as the Provedor may decide, including the development and implementation of a strategic annual plan of actions, publications, lectures and symposia.
Part II
Powers and Duties
Section 22: Powers
For the purpose of performing his or her functions under Section 20, the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall have the following powers:
(a) to receive complaints;
(b) to investigate and inquire into matters under his or her competence;
(c) to decide not to take any further action;
(d) to invite a person to answer questions where it appears that person may have information relevant to the complaint;
(e) to have access in accordance with the law to any person, premise, document, equipment, good or information in connection with the complaint;
(f) to visit any place of detention in order to inspect the conditions of detention and conduct a confidential interview of the persons in detention;
(g) to refer a complaint to a competent jurisdiction or another recourse mechanism;
(h) to seek leave to appear during proceedings before a Court, a Tribunal, an Arbitrator or an administrative Commission;
(i) to act as a mediator and a conciliator between the complainant and the agency or entity which is the subject of a complaint, where the parties agree to submit to such a process;
(j) to make recommendations for redress in complaints brought before him or her, including recommendations on remedies and reparations;
(k) to provide advice including opinions, proposals and recommendations aimed at improving respect for human rights and good governance by the e ntities within his or her jurisdiction;
(l) to report to the National Parliament in relation to the findings of an investigation or in relation to his or her recommendations;
(m) to maintain confidentiality.
Section 23: Limits of powers
The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall not be empowered:
(a) to make decisions which determine or dispose of the fundamental human rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of persons; or
(b) to set aside, revoke or modify the decisions of the agencies or entities affected, or make compensation orders; or
(c) to investigate the exercise of judicial functions or challenge a decision issued by a Court; or
(d) to investigate the exercise of legislative functions; or
(e) to investigate a matter that is subject of an action before a Court, and has not yet been determined.
Section 24: Duties
24.1 To keep the public informed
The Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica shall keep the public informed of the existence and mandate of its Office, and be accessible to any person who wishes to brin g an information, lodge a complaint or seek clarification on a matter.
24.2 To maintain the confidentiality
(a) The Provedor and the persons appointed to serve in the Office of the Provedor shall preserve and aid in preserving the confidentiality of matters that come to their knowledge in the performance of their functions and duties as established by the present Law. Such restrictions shall apply after separation from Office but do not prevent the Provedor from exercising duties under Section 24.4.
(b) The provisions of Section 24.1 (a) shall not be so construed that the Provedor or any employee of the Office of the Provedor shall be compelled to produce any book, voucher or other document or to answer questions in any proceedings in a court of law or before any body or institution established by or under any law, in connection with information which came to his or her knowledge.
24.3 To keep the parties informed
Where the Provedor decides to conduct an investigation under this Law, he or she shall inform:
(a) the complainant (if any) pursuant to Section 27.4;
(b) the person alleged to be aggrieved, if not the complainant;
(c) the person to whom the investigation relates;
(d) in relation to an investigation relating to a department, the person holding or performing the duties of the Office of Head of the department, of his or her intention to make the investigation.
24.4 To cooperate
(a) The Provedor shall maintain close liaison with similar institutions, bodies or authorities in order to foster common policies and practices, and to promote cooperation.
(b) Where the Provedor deems that an effective and adequate judicial or administrative remedy provided by the law is available to the complainant, the Provedor may limit his or her intervention to directing the complainant to the competent authority.
(c) Where information received by the Provedor gives rise to a belief that a crime has been committed or the commission of a crime is imminent, the Provedor shall refer the case to the Office of the Prosecutor-General and share any information or documents that are in his/her possession or under his or her control.
(d) If the Provedor so refers the complaint, he or she shall forthwith give notice in writing to the complainant stating that the complaint has bee n so referred.
(e) The Provedor shall consult and cooperate with other persons and bodies or organizations concerned with the promotion and protection human rights and justice, the fight against corruption and the protection of vulnerable groups.
24.5 To report
(a) The Provedor shall report annually to the National Parliament on the performance of its functions.
(b) Where circumstances so require, the Provedor may decide to address the public directly or through the State owned media press or any other press organ, particularly to publicize his or her opinions and recommendations; the Provedor may also decide to issue ‘communiqués’ or publish information concerning the conclusions reached in cases or any other matter pertaining to his activity. Any publicity issued by the Provedor shall be balanced, fair and true.
CHAPTER V: COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCESS
Part I
Processes and Procedure
Section 25: Initiative
The Provedor shall act on the basis of a complaint or representation, individual or collective, or on his or her own initiative.
Section 26: Submission of complaints
26.1 Any legal or natural person, or their agent or representative, may complain to the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica about:
(a) alleged or suspected violations or infringements of human rights and freedoms, abuse of power, maladministration, manifest injustice, lack of due process and discrimination; and
(b) alleged or suspected nepotism, collusion and corruption including misappropriation of public funds or other public property;
(a) alleged unconstitutionality, including through omission, of an act of the Government, legislative measures, laws and other legal instruments;
(b) alleged inconsistency of laws, administrative instructions, policies and practices with customary international law and ratified human rights treaties.
26.2 The National Parliament, its parliamentary committees, as well as its Members may refer to the Provedor petitions or grievances that are submitted to any of the former.
26.3 Complaints shall be made orally or in writing, and shall include the complainant’s identity and contact address.
(a) Where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his or her agent, if he/she is able to sign;
(b) Where a complaint is made orally, the person to whom the complaint is made shall reduce the complaint to writing or assist the complainant in putting the complaint in writing, and shall append his or her signature and the signature or thumbprint of the complainant.
26.4 Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, where a letter written by:
(a) a person held in any place of detention; or
(b) a patient in a hospital or other institution, is addressed to the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, it shall be immediately forwarded unopened and unaltered to the Provedor by the person in charge of the place or institution where the writer of the letter is detained or in which he or she is a patient.
26.5 Where a person who may have laid a complaint under this Law has died or is for any reason unable to act for himself or herself, the complaint may be continued by his or her personal representative, or by a member of his or her family, or other individual suitable to represent him or her.
26.6 Complaints can only be submitted in connection with acts or omissions, which were committed after the entry into force of the present Law.
26.7 Complainants shall not be required to pay a fee in respect of the lodgment of a complaint, or in respect of any of the work of the Provedor, nor shall the Provedor receive any compensation from complainants in respect of his or her work.
26.8 Procedures before the Provedor shall be exempted from expenses and stamps.
Section 27: Preliminary Assessment
27.1 The Provedor shall, within 30 days of a complaint being lodged with his or her Office, notify the complainant, in writing, of the receipt of the complaint.
27.2 The Provedor shall, within 30 days of the complaint being lodged with his or her Office, make a preliminary examination of the complaint with a view to deciding upon its admissibility.
27.3 The Provedor may decide not to investigate or investigate further, if:
(a) the complaint is manifestly made in bad faith, unfounded or patently frivolous or vexatious;
(b) under the law or existing administrative practice, there is adequate remedy for the complaint, whether or not the complainant has availed himself or herself of it;
(c) the complaint is not within the mandate of the Provedor;
(d) the complaint is in connection with acts or omissions that were committed before the present Law came into force;
(e) the damages caused by the act or omissions have been effectively and adequately redressed;
(f) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, any further investigation is unnecessary.
27.4 The Provedor shall, within 45 days of a complaint being lodged with his or her Office, notify the complainant, in writing, of his or her decision to investigate or not to take further action on the complaint and the reasons for so deciding.
27.5 Notwithstanding Section 27.3, the Provedor may decide to inquire generally into a matter of his or her own initiative, or re-open the case if within 12 months after the refusal of the Provedor to investigate any complaint, fresh evidence in favor of the complainant becomes available.
Section 28: Mediation and Conciliation
28.1The Provedor shall be empowered to act as a mediator and a conciliator between the complainant and the agency or entity the subject of a complaint, where both parties agree to submit to such a process.
28.2 The objectives of a conciliation conference are to identify the matters at issue between the parties and to use the best endeavours of the Provedor to secure a settlement between the parties on the matter at issue.
28.3 The objectives of a mediation conference are to facilitate the parties reaching an agreement in settlement of the matter at issue.
28.4 Where one of the parties rejects mediation or conciliation, the Provedor shall conduct a full investigation and make recommendations on the case.
Part II
Investigation
Section 29: Investigation procedure
29.1The Provedor shall not investigate:
(a) a matter which is pending before a Court or judicial tribunal;
(b) a matter involving the relations or dealings between the Government and any other Government or an international organization;
(c) a matter relating to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
29.2 No writ of injunction shall be issued by any Court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Provedor under this Law, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica.
29.3 The investigation shall be conducted with due respect of rights and liberties of the persons involved; any investigation under this Law shall be conducted in private and a person who has been invited or required to appear before the Provedor shall be permitted to appear with, or be represented by, a legal representative.
29.4 No person shall be entitled as of right to be heard by the Provedor.
29.5 Where the Provedor decides to conduct an investigation under this Law, he or she shall inform:
(a) the complainant (if any) pursuant to Section 27.4;
(b) the person alleged to be aggrieved, if not the complainant;
(c) the person to whom the investigation relates;
(d) in relation to an investigation relating to a department, the person holding or performing the duties of the Office of Head of the department, of his or her intention to make the
investigation.
29.6 The Provedor shall give the entity or person concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorized the act or omission complained of, an opportunity to comment on any allegations contained in the complaint, and the representative of the entity or person concerned shall submit his or her comments within such time as the Provedor may specify.
29.7 In conducting investigations, the Provedor shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence or procedure, but shall act fairly at all times.
Section 30: Investigation related powers
30.1 An investigation shall consist of requests for information, inspections, examinations, inquiries or any other procedures that do not impinge upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.
30.2 Any person, any civil servant, any official of any public entity, any incumbent of any organ both civil and military subject to his or her jurisdiction under the terms of Section 3 above, shall collaborate with the Provedor and provide all informatio n that the latter might request.
30.3 For the purpose of an investigation, the Provedor may, by notice in writing, require a person:
(a) to appear before him or her, on a date and at the time and place specified in the notice;
(b) to disclose truthfully, frankly and fully information within his or her knowledge;
(a) to produce any object or items including documents and records, including electronic data, in his or her possession, custody or control, that the Provedor considers relevant to an investigation;
(b) to allow the Provedor complete access, inspection and examination in accordance with the law to any premise, document, equipment or good that the Provedor considers relevant to an investigation.
30.4 In the fulfillment of his or her functions under Section 30.3 below, the Provedor may request, in accordance with the law, an Investigating Judge of a competent jurisdiction of Timor-Leste to issue search and seizure warrants to enable relevant authorities to search premises and seize particular items considered relevant to a Provedor’s investigation.
30.5 The duty to cooperate shall not prevail where legal restrictions in respect of privileges and duties of confidentiality apply to these entities. If the Prosecutor-General certifies that the disclosure of information would be contrary to the law or the public interest, as such information would
(a) seriously harm the legitimate commercial interests of any person or body;
(b) prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the State;
(c) involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet, or of a committee of the Cabinet, the Provedor cannot require a person to give information concerning the matter, to answer questions concerning the matter or to produce the document, record or item.
30.6 Non-compliance with the duty to cooperate without lawful excuse shall constitute an offence, as provided for in Section 34.1 of the present Law.
30.7 The Provedor may pay to a person who has made a complaint is made and to any other person who attends and furnishes information for the purposes of an investigation under this Law, such amounts in respect of expenses properly incurred having regard to the rates applicable to the Courts.
Part III
Report and Recommendations
Section 31: Report
31.1 The Provedor shall after completing any inquiry or investigation, provide the person who laid the matter before him/her, if any, and the person or entity against whom the complaint, if any, was made with a detailed report on the findings, recommendations and outcome of such inquiry or investigation. The Provedor may make known to other persons findings, points of view, conclusions or recommendations in respect of a matter he/she investigated.
31.2 The Provedor shall, not later than 30 June of each year, submit to the National Parliament, a detailed report of his or her activities, initiatives, statistics on cases and the results obtained during the calendar year ending on the preceding 31 December. The report shall make recommendations concerning the reforms and other measures, whether legal, political, administrative or otherwise which could be taken to achieve the objectives of the Provedor, prevent or redress human rights violations and respond to the needs of fairness, integrity, accountability, transparency and responsibility in public administration. The report shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste or any means accessible to the general public.
31.3 In addition to the annual report contemplated in Section 31.2 above, the Provedor may submit to the National Parliament special reports on cases or matters of a serious nature, if deemed fit and necessary.
31.4 The Provedor may, from time to time, in the public interest or in the interests of any person or entity, publish reports relating generally to the exercise of his or her functions or to any particular cases or situations investigated under this Law.
Section 32: Recommendations
(a) The Provedor shall determine the causes of violation, abuse, mismanagement, fraud and corruption in the public entity, and make recommendations for their correction, prevention and their elimination and the observance of high standards of respect for human rights rule of law, ethics and efficiency.
(b) The Provedor’s recommendations shall be addressed to the organ that has the power to correct and redress the irregular act or situation.
(c) The organ to which a recommendation is addressed must, within 60 days, inform the Provedor of the extent to which the recommendation has been acted upon or implemented.
(d) Where the recommendation has not been acted upon or implemented, the Provedor may report such failure to the National Parliament as provided for in Sections 24.5 and 31.3 above.
Article 33: Absence of Appeal
No appeal lies against the recommendations of the Provedor.
Part IV
Offences
Article 34: General Offences
34.1 It shall be an offence for any person to:
(a) knowingly hinder the Office of the Provedor in the fulfillment or execution of its powers, obligations and duties under the present Law;
(b) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an order issued by the Provedor to appear and/or answer questions at a specified place, date and time;
(c) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an order issued by the Office of the Provedor to produce any object or item in his or her possession, custody or control;
(d) willfully disclose any confidential information in contravention of the present Law, except in cases provided for in article 24.2.
34.2 Any person who commits any of the acts listed in article 34.1 shall be guilty of an offence and may be liable to a fine not to exceed US 3,000 dollars.
Article 35: Other Offences
35.1 It shall be a serious offence for any person to:
(a) perform any act aimed at improperly influencing the Office of the Provedor;
(b) threaten, intimidate or improperly influence any person who has cooperated with the Office of the Provedor or is intending to cooperate with the Office of the Provedor;
(c) act by malice or gross bad faith while filing a completely unwarranted and false complaint against any government official or employee.
35.2 Any person who commits any of the acts listed in article 35.1 shall be guilty of an offence and may be liable to a fine not to exceed US 3,000 dollars and a term of imprisonment not to exceed one (1) year.
35.3 Any delay or refusal to comply with the request of the Provedor shall constitute ground for administrative disciplinary action against the Officer or employee to whom it was addressed.
Part V
Miscellaneous
Section 36: Victimization
36.1 No person shall be liable to prosecution for an offence under enactment by reason of his or her compliance with a requirement of the Provedor under this section. Absence from work shall be deemed justified where it stems from the duty to be present before the Provedor.
36.2 No person, or a relative or associate to that person, shall be unfairly treated in their employment or by any other means by reason of his or her cooperation with the Office of the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justica, or by taking any action under or by reference to this Law.
Section 37: Implementation
Any supplementary provisions, necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Law may be specified by Directive.
Section 38: Entry into Force
The present Law shall enter into force upon signature.
Passed on_________ 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)