Dili, October 3, 2025 (Média Democracia) – JSMP held a press conference regarding the Suai District Court of First Instance, through a mobile court in Bobonaro Municipality, addressing two criminal cases of simple offenses against physical integrity with the nature of domestic violence. This conference was accessed by Média Democracia via the JSMP page today (03/10/2025).
The Director stated that the two criminal cases, with Case Numbers: 0003/25.BBBLB and 0001/25.BBBBV, took place in Bobonaro Municipality. These two cases were tried alongside 10 other cases monitored by JSMP between 23 to 26 September 2025. However, the total number of cases scheduled for trial during this mobile court session was 56.
JSMP Executive Director Ana Paula Marçal explained that, based on JSMP’s observations during the mobile court hearings, JSMP noted some concerns regarding the way judicial authorities interacted with victims in domestic violence cases.
“In the trial of case No. 0003/25.BBBLB, the accused allegedly assaulted his wife simply because their child was crying while the victim was bathing. The accused was holding a phone but ignored the child crying beside him,” said Ana Paula Marçal, JSMP Executive Director.
She further explained that, during the evidentiary process, JSMP found that some of the judge’s questions to the victim were completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. The judge asked questions that were highly personal, such as: ‘Is this your first child? How many more children do you want? Three or four?’ JSMP considered such questions inappropriate because they intruded on the victim’s privacy and were not related to the case facts or evidence relevant to the decision.
“JSMP calls on judicial authorities to be sensitive when interacting with victims in gender-based violence cases, including domestic violence, and to avoid irrelevant personal questions that can diminish or silence the victim’s ability to provide relevant facts to the court,” Marçal stressed.
She emphasized that the approach taken in questioning has a strong impact on the capacity of victims of domestic violence to participate actively in uncovering the truth. Personal or private questions can undermine women victims’ ability to speak freely, thereby weakening their contribution to establishing truth and strengthening the credibility of justice.
“After the trial, JSMP spoke with the victim, who said that the judge’s questions made her feel uncomfortable and embarrassed to answer, as they deeply offended her feelings,” the Director added.
In another case, No. 0001/25.BBBBV, JSMP observed that the presiding judge did not demonstrate neutrality during the trial. The judge even appeared to give suggestions or strategies to the accused on how to avoid accountability. For instance, the judge asked the accused: ‘Don’t you know any tactics? Why didn’t you return to England before the court issued an edict, leaving your defense to represent you in this process?’
“This behavior is unacceptable for a judge, as it violates the principle of neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity. Such remarks explicitly show that the judge supported the accused, stood by his side, and favored his interests. This seriously undermines judicial integrity and public trust in the courts and the justice system,” said Ana Paula Marçal.
JSMP stressed that the judge’s approach in this case was inappropriate, as instead of upholding neutrality, the judge encouraged the accused and society to evade justice. In fact, judges are required to promote compliance with the law and explain the legal consequences to parties when they fail to cooperate with the judicial process. Unfortunately, in this trial, the judge encouraged the accused to escape accountability.
“This is very concerning, especially in cases involving domestic violence. Such conduct reinforces public perception that judges and the justice system serve only men’s interests while ignoring the protection and needs of victims,” Marçal emphasized.
She underlined that this practice implicitly shows solidarity and tolerance towards crimes committed by perpetrators. This is serious, as it exceeds professional duties and institutional responsibilities outlined in Article 121(2) of the RDTL Constitution, Article 4(3) of the Law on Judicial Organization, and Article 6(1) of the Statute of Judicial Magistrates, all of which highlight impartiality and independence as fundamental duties of judges.
“JSMP recommends that the Superior Council of Judicial Magistrates take this behavior seriously and adopt appropriate measures and training policies to improve communication and interaction between judicial authorities and parties during trials,” she added.
Meanwhile, during this mobile court session, JSMP monitored a total of 12 cases. Among them, 7 were gender-based violence (GBV) cases, 4 were smuggling cases, and 1 was a simple offense against physical integrity. All 12 cases received verdicts.
From the 12 cases consisting of three (3) cases of simple offense against physical integrity with a domestic violence nature were sentenced to fines of US$60.00 each, one (1) case of the same crime was sentenced to a fine of US$120.00, one (1) case was sentenced to a fine of US$30.00, one (1) case was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year, and one (1) case was sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.
For the four (4) smuggling cases, one was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, one was sentenced to a fine of US$120.00, one was sentenced to a fine of US$60.00, and one was acquitted.
Meanwhile, the court accepted the withdrawal of the complaint in the case of one (1) simple offense against physical integrity.
JSMP’s general observation during the mobile court session was that parties actively collaborated and were punctual in attending hearings as scheduled by the court.
Report: Nelfiano
Photo: JSMP Media