East Timor has become the unlikely venue for a war crimes case against Myanmar's military leadership, as proceedings advance in Dili's courts and test Asean's uneasy approach to the junta.
Brought by the Chin Human Rights Organisation (CHRO), the case is expected to shed light on whether a small nation with its own history of occupation and atrocity can use its courts to examine grave allegations against a fellow Asean member's military rulers.
It lands at an awkward moment for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which has struggled to restrain Myanmar's generals through diplomacy and non-interference even as parts of the bloc cautiously reopen channels with Naypyidaw.
CHRO executive director Salai Za Uk Ling told This Week in Asia that the case had advanced to the judicial phase following the appointment of a senior prosecutor, adding that victim representatives had recently submitted questions of law for judicial determination and were now under the court's consideration.
"As with any complex international criminal proceedings, progress is measured through legal procedure rather than political timelines," he said.
"We respect the independence of the Timorese judiciary and remain encouraged by its continued engagement with the case."
The rights group, which represents Myanmar's Chin ethnic minority, launched legal proceedings against the country's military administration, including its leader Min Aung Hlaing, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Its complaint alleges abuses in Myanmar's northwestern Chin state, including gang rape, the massacre of 10 people, deaths of Christian religious figures and air strikes on a hospital and religious buildings.
Dili accepted the CHRO complaint against senior members of Myanmar's military on February 2 and appointed a senior prosecutor to examine the case.
Days later, on February 16, Myanmar's military government ordered East Timor's senior diplomat to leave the country – a rare move between Asean members.
East Timor's President Jose Ramos-Horta had met CHRO members in mid-January. The case was formally submitted to the Court of First Instance in Dili for judicial review in May.
The case is being pursued under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows courts to investigate and potentially prosecute serious international crimes regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of those involved.
Za Uk said cases alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity were "inherently complex" and required careful judicial consideration, substantial review of evidence and close adherence to due process.
"Accountability is a long-term endeavour," he said, adding that every procedural step mattered as it reinforced the principle that even the most serious crimes should be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Za Uk recounted the words of Pu Joseph, the father of a 13-year-old boy allegedly killed by the military, who reportedly asked: "Will anyone outside Myanmar ever know what happened to my son? Will those responsible ever be held accountable?"
The complaint also mentions Cung Biak Hum, a 31-year-old pastor who was allegedly shot by Myanmar soldiers while trying to extinguish a fire blaze caused by artillery strikes, then summarily executed and his body mutilated.
"Universal jurisdiction... offers hope that justice is not confined by borders, that the voices of victims can be heard beyond Myanmar and that impunity is not inevitable simply because those responsible remain in power," Za Uk said.
Chris Gunness, director of the CHRO's Myanmar Accountability Project, said there was strong support for the case, particularly among Timorese civil society.
"This has strengthened because of the bullying tactics of Min Aung Hlaing, who had the most senior Timorese diplomat in Myanmar expelled when we filed our case," he said.
East Timor gained independence in 2002 after a 24-year Indonesian occupation and a violent transition from foreign rule – a history that has made questions of atrocity, international justice and accountability politically resonant in the country.
Its entry into Asean last year has lent the case added regional significance, as the bloc continues to grapple with Myanmar's civil war and the limits of its own diplomacy.
Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has openly criticised Myanmar's military rulers and regime, calling its civil war a "stain on Asean".
Myanmar's military administration first expelled East Timor's charge d'affaires in August 2023 after Ramos-Horta met members of the shadow National Unity Government, formed by lawmakers ousted in the 2021 coup.
"East Timor sees the current military-backed government as being in the same autocratic, militaristic mould as Indonesia's New Order government, which invaded the then Portuguese territory in 1975," said Damien Kingsbury, a professor emeritus at Australia's Deakin University who specialises in Southeast Asian politics.
International law superseded national boundaries, he added, particularly in cases involving war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Kingsbury said the CHRO's charge was consistent with wider allegations of human rights abuses in Myanmar since the coup – including accusations of indiscriminate air strikes on civilian infrastructure, torture in detention facilities and the intentional blocking of humanitarian aid.
For Asean, long guided by non-interference, quiet diplomacy and consensus, the case marks an unusual first: one member state using its courts to examine alleged war crimes by another's military rulers.
Joanne Lin, a senior fellow at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute and coordinator of its Asean Studies Centre, said the case introduced "a rare approach directly into Asean internal dynamics", as issues were traditionally managed through "diplomacy, quiet engagement and non-interference".
She said she expected the case to move slowly, given East Timor's small size and the "resource-intensive" complexity of universal jurisdiction cases.
"Even if the case does not move quickly, it still matters politically," she said. "It signals that as Asean member states re-engage the current Myanmar administration, accountability concerns have not disappeared."
After five years of excluding Myanmar's top leaders from high-level Asean meetings failed to force compliance with the bloc's "five-point consensus" – a peace plan calling for dialogue and an end to violence among all parties – the bloc has in recent weeks shifted towards calibrated re-engagement with the military government.
This changing environment could put East Timor in a difficult position, according to Khoo Ying Hooi, an associate professor of international relations and human rights at the University of Malaya.
"As other regional governments rebuild working relations with Naypyidaw, there may be quiet diplomatic pressure on Dili to prevent the legal case from obstructing bilateral and Asean cooperation," she said.
"The issue should not be reduced to a bilateral quarrel between Dili and Naypyidaw. The deeper question is whether victims of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity can seek justice through a regional channel."
The court case was unprecedented given Asean's long-standing principle of non-interference, said Nuno Canas Mendes, an associate professor at the University of Lisbon who researches East Timor, including its relationship with Asean.
"It highlights the growing relevance of international criminal law and the principle of universal jurisdiction," he said. "From a domestic perspective, it may also provide an interesting illustration of the operation of the principle of the separation of powers, with judicial authorities acting independently of the executive."