WRITTEN QUESTION E-4025/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. UN investigation in East Timor.
Date: 2004-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: East Timor, UNO, communications profession, homicide, judicial inquiry, legal action, the EU's international role

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/897

Market surveillance is the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission is not directly involved
unless the Member State concerned notifies such a measure under the safeguard clause procedure as
described at Article 9 of the above Directive. In this respect, no such notification has been received to-date.

(1) Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to
electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limit, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973 amended by Council
Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

(2004/C 78 E/0948)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4025/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: UN investigation in East Timor

One of my constituents has brought an ongoing UN investigation to my attention.

In 1975, five journalists were killed in East Timor whilst reporting on the Indonesian invasion. One of
these journalists was a relative of my constituent. Initial reports stated the deaths were the results of
crossfire, but it was later revealed (in the mid-1990s) that they were targeted and killed by Indonesians.

The UN administration has taken up this case, and although they were reportedly near to making arrests in
2001, no decisions or action has been taken.

My constituent is very concerned that justice has not been done. Could the Commission state what it can
do to help the progression of this case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Five journalists, Malcolm Rennie (Scotland), Brian Peters (England), Greg Shackleton (Australian), Tony
Stewart (New Zealand) and Gary Cunningham (Australia), all working for Australian television channels,
were brutally killed in the village of Balibo, Maliana District, East Timor in October 1975. Whilst the facts
of the case are widely known as a result of media coverage and continued lobbying for justice by family
members, no arrests or prosecutions have ever taken place.

The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (Untaet) had a full governance mandate
from the Security Council, and investigation of this and other historical cases was undertaken by UN Police
investigators. By the time the Untaet mission ended in May 2002, investigation had reached the stage
where evidence had been gathered and numerous unsuccessful requests for co-operation had been made to
Indonesia for access to witnesses. The European Union also raised the case with the Indonesian
Government in 2002. None of these requests bore fruit.

Prosecutions for murder cannot be undertaken because of the expiry of relevant statutes of limitation,
(18 years in the Indonesian Penal Code, 15 years in the Portuguese Penal Code) although it might be
possible with further investigation to maintain charges for war crimes (there being no statute of limitation
for war crimes under the Geneva Convention).

Since 20 May 2002 East Timor attained full independence, and prosecuting authority passed from Untaet
to the institutions of the sovereign nation. A case such as this falls within the mandate of the Prosecutor
General, and relevant files, including the files developed by Untaet, should be transferred to his office.

C 78 E/898

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission’s Delegation in Dili, East Timor, has contacted the Prosecutor General who denied that
the files had been officially transferred to him. The Prosecutor General informed the victim’s relatives
accordingly, when he met them in October 2003 (when they travelled to Timor-Leste for the inauguration
of the ‘Balibo Flag House’ commemorating the Balibo five).

The Prosecutor General has assured the Commission’s Delegation in East Timor that he will continue the
investigation as soon as the case documents are transferred to him.

(2004/C 78 E/0949)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Under-utilisation of payment appropriations

(12 January 2004)

According to the recent annual report of the Court of Auditors of the European Union, under the 2002
budget a total of EUR 85 144 was disbursed in payment appropriations, out of an available total of
EUR 98 579. This represents a utilisation rate of 86,4 %.

This figure, together with those for the previous years (82,3 % for 2001, 87,9 % for 2000), confirms that
the under-utilisation of payment appropriations is endemic and is the rule, not the exception. The
mismatches appear primarily in category 2, one reason being that in the first years the programming stage
consumes considerable time, resources and energy. Despite this, can the Commission state how it
interprets the fact that under Internal Policies only 82,5 % of the payment appropriations available were
executed in 2002, or that under External Actions only 86 % were utilised in 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The 2002 overall implementation rate of payments was indeed 86 %, exceeding the 2001 rate of 82 %.

The under-implementation amounted to some EUR 13,1 billion, comprising mainly:

(cid:1) EUR 1,4 billion for Agriculture;

(cid:1) EUR 8,1 billion for the Structural Funds;

(cid:1) EUR 1,4 billion for Internal policies;

(cid:1) EUR 0,5 billion for External actions; and

(cid:1) EUR 0,9 billion for Pre-accession aid.

A detailed table providing the breakdown of the underimplementation of payments for:

(cid:1) the budgetary appropriations;

(cid:1) carryovers;

(cid:1) third party appropriations;

is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The main reason for the underimplementation of the structural
funds was that for the 1994-1999
programmes the actual implementation was lower than forecast by the Member States, whereas for the
new 2000-2006 programmes the implementation rate reached 91 % (compared to 70 % in 2001).