# Example — auditing user-supplied documents ## Example A — SPSC conflated with Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal ### The document A draft article states: > "General Wiranto was tried for crimes against humanity at the East Timor Tribunal in Dili in 2003 and acquitted." ### The audit Multiple errors (Trap 1): 1. **General Wiranto was NEVER tried at the SPSC.** He was **indicted** by the SCU on 24 February 2003, but he remained in Indonesia and Indonesia did not extradite him. **No SPSC trial took place.** 2. The statement may confuse two separate processes: - **SPSC** at the Dili District Court (Timor-Leste) — indicted Wiranto in 2003; he was never tried - **Indonesian Ad Hoc Human Rights Court on East Timor** at the Central Jakarta District Court (Indonesia) — tried 18 defendants for the 1999 violence, including senior Indonesian military and police officers; most convictions were reversed on appeal. **Wiranto was not a defendant before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal either** — the Indonesian process notably excluded the most senior officials. 3. The 2008 reversal/restoration of conviction in **Eurico Guterres** (Aitarak militia leader) at the Indonesian Constitutional Court is a separate matter — distinct from any SPSC proceedings. ### Suggested redraft > "General Wiranto, former Indonesian Minister of Defense in 1999, was indicted by the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) on 24 February 2003 for crimes against humanity under command/superior responsibility for the 1999 East Timor violence (*Prosecutor v. Wiranto et al.*, SCU Indictment, 24 February 2003). He never stood trial — Indonesia did not effectively cooperate with the Special Panels for Serious Crimes (SPSC) at the Dili District Court, and Wiranto remained in Indonesia. Parallel proceedings before the Indonesian Ad Hoc Human Rights Court on East Timor (Central Jakarta District Court) addressed crimes by other Indonesian military and police officials; most convictions in those Jakarta proceedings were reversed on appeal." --- ## Example B — SPSC characterised as "international tribunal for East Timor" ### The document A thesis introduction reads: > "The international tribunal for East Timor, established by the UN Security Council, prosecuted the 1999 violence between 2000 and 2006." ### The audit Trap 2 — multiple errors: 1. **No international tribunal for East Timor was ever established.** A proposal for an international tribunal was discussed at the UN in 1999-2000, but it was **never created**. 2. **The SPSC is NOT an international tribunal.** It is a **hybrid jurisdiction integrated into the Dili District Court** — part of the national judicial system of East Timor (later Timor-Leste). The Panels were composed of 2 international judges + 1 East Timorese judge (UNTAET Regulation 2000/15 Section 3). 3. **The SPSC was NOT established by the UN Security Council.** It was established by **UNTAET Regulation 2000/15 of 6 June 2000** — a regulation of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), which itself was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1272 of 25 October 1999. The UNTAET regulation is a form of **administrative legislation** by a UN transitional administration acting as the sovereign authority — institutionally distinct from a Security Council resolution establishing an international tribunal (as for ICTY, ICTR, or the proposed Ukraine tribunal). ### Suggested redraft > "The Special Panels for Serious Crimes (SPSC) of the Dili District Court — established by UNTAET Regulation 2000/15 of 6 June 2000 as a hybrid jurisdiction integrated into the national judicial system of East Timor (later Timor-Leste) — prosecuted the 1999 violence between 2000 and 2006. The SPSC operated alongside the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) within the Office of the Prosecutor General of Timor-Leste. Panels were composed of two international judges and one East Timorese judge." --- ## The common thread The audit task for SPSC documents focuses on **institutional precision** — distinguishing: - **SPSC** at Dili District Court vs **Indonesian Ad Hoc Tribunal** at Jakarta vs proposed-but-never-established **international tribunal** - **UNTAET Regulations** (administrative law) as the SPSC's founding instruments vs **UN Security Council resolutions** (international law) as ICTY/ICTR/proposed-Ukraine founding instruments - **Indicted** vs **tried** vs **convicted** — a critical distinction given the SPSC's structural impunity A SPSC citation that omits the institutional precision — UNTAET-derived hybrid jurisdiction, Dili District Court integration, 2 international + 1 Timorese panel composition, SCU prosecutorial structure — is incomplete. Step 0 (identify the institutional context) catches the most common errors.