Patrícia Jerónimo and a brief civil war ensued, at which point the Portuguese administration withdrew to the offshore island of Ataúro26 (Teles 2001: 593-594; Lisson 2008: 1477). FRETILIN came out victorious of the civil war and, faced with the intensification of Indonesian military operations in the territory (Lisson 2008: 1477-1478), decided to unilaterally declare the independence of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, on 28 November 1975. FRETILIN’s declaration of independence was recognised by fifteen states (Escarameia 2002), but not by Portugal, which expressly refused to acknowledge Timor’s independence in a formal announcement made by the National Decolonisation Commission on 29 November 1975 (Teles 2001: 595). East Timor had ceased to be part of the Portuguese territory in 1974, by effect of Law no. 7/74, of 27 July 1974,27 which clarified that Portugal’s recognition of peoples’ right to self-determination included the acceptance of the independence of the overseas territories and the derogation of Article 1 of the 1933 Constitution to the extent that it included the overseas territories in the definition of the Portuguese territory (Teles 2001: 589). The exact constitutional status of East Timor in the Portuguese legal system became disputed when the 1976 Constitution used the expression ‘under Portuguese administration’ only in relation to Macau and not East Timor (Teles 2001: 611-613; Nygh 2002: 508-510).28 Nevertheless, it was as ‘administering power’ over East Timor and as a champion of the Timorese people’s right to self-determination that Portugal continued to act vis-à-vis the international community for the duration of the Indonesian military occupation of the territory, from December 1975 until August 1999.29 The fact that Portugal never recognised the independence of East Timor, nor the legitimacy of the Indonesian annexation of the territory, had important consequences for the citizenship status of the East Timorese. Infamous Decree-Law no. 308-A/75, of 24 July 1975,30 never applied in of 17 July 1975 (Teles 2001: 592-593). Law no. 7/75, which was never enforced, defined a new Organic Statute for Timor, to govern the decolonisation process and the exercise of political power ‘until the end of the sovereignty prerogatives exercised by Portugal over the territory’. Article 2 of Law no. 7/75 established that the political future of Timor was to be decided by a Popular Assembly to be elected by direct, secret and universal suffrage. The election was scheduled for the third Sunday of October 1976 (Article 3). The definition of the political and administrative statute of Timor was to be done in such a way that all Portuguese prerogatives over the territory would cease on the third Sunday of October 1978 (Article 5). For the duration of the transitional period, a provisional government would be in place, acting according to the rules set in the Organic Statute for Timor. Law no. 7/75 was silent on citizenship issues. Law no. 7/75 is available at https://dre.pt/application/file/336624 [02.10.2016]. 26 From where the last remaining representatives of the Portuguese administration eventually left Timor on 8 December 1975, one day after the Indonesian military invasion (Teles 2001: 595). 27 Available at https://dre.pt/application/file/279174 [02.10.2016]. 28 The democratic Constitution which replaced the 1933 Constitution, on 25 April 1976, defined the Portuguese territory as comprising the continental territory in Europe and the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira [Article 5 (1), under the heading ‘territory’]. Article 5 (4) made an express mention to Macau, prescribing that ‘the territory of Macau, under Portuguese administration, is governed by statute appropriate to its special circumstances’. No similar mention was made about East Timor. The 1976 Constitution included an autonomous provision on East Timor – Article 307, under the heading ‘independence of Timor’ –, where it was stated that Portugal continued to be bound by its responsibilities under international law to promote and safeguard East Timor’s right to independence. However, this provision did not use the expression ‘under Portuguese administration’. 29 It is worth noting that, in 1984, the Timorese resistance abandoned its claim to have declared independence, in a move designed to facilitate Portugal’s role as champion of the East Timorese’s right to self-determination. This way, it could no longer be argued – by Indonesia and other states – that Portugal’s role as administering power over East Timor was inconsistent with the status of the proclaimed Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste as a subject of international law (Valle 2010: 293). 30 Adopted under fear of an ‘invasion’ of Portuguese citizens from former colonies in Africa and Asia, DecreeLaw no. 308-A/75, of 24 July 1975, set as a rule that the persons born or domiciled in an overseas territory turned independent would lose Portuguese citizenship (with a few exceptions), irrespective of their wish to keep Portuguese citizenship and whether or not they had acquired the citizenship of the new state. This Decree-Law was severely criticised in the literature (Ramos 1976: 140-140; Jerónimo 2008: 127-136) and was eventually 8 RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2017/7 - © 2017 Author