Amnesty offer 'would not reveal truth'<\/p>\n
Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A number of international human rights observers have expressed
\ntheir pessimism that offering amnesty for human rights violators
\nwould be effective in revealing the truth of their wrongdoings.<\/p>\n
Based on experience in countries such as South Africa and
\nSierra Leone, the experts concluded that the amnesty offer was
\ninsufficient incentive for culprits to come clean about the past.<\/p>\n
\"In a country where the judicial system is weak and human
\nrights record is poor, there's an enormous doubt that the amnesty
\nmechanism will work,\" said Howard Varney, a former director at
\nthe Sierra Leonean and South African Truth and Reconciliation
\nCommissions.<\/p>\n
Two things could happen, he explained. First, people would not
\ncome forward to apply for amnesty and speak the truth because
\nthere was no prospect of prosecution, or, they would come forward
\nbut not speak the truth, and yet be amnestied.<\/p>\n
\"In the end, what you have is no truth and no justice. In
\nIndonesia, where the incapability of prosecuting properly has
\nbeen evident, it's a mistake. Without serious prosecutions, the
\nmechanism will prove to be a massive failure,\" Varney warned.<\/p>\n
He was commenting on the recently passed law on the
\nestablishment of Indonesian Truth and Reconciliation Commission
\n(KKR), which offers amnesty to alleged human rights violators if
\nthey confess to their offenses and if the victims, who would be
\nentitled to compensation, forgive them.<\/p>\n
Those denying accusations against them would then be brought
\nbefore the human rights court to face justice, according to the
\nlaw.<\/p>\n
Victims and families affected by various gross human rights
\nabuses in Indonesia have been disappointed with the country's
\npoor record in prosecutions, with most suspects implicated in the
\ncases being let off, while several others seem to enjoy immunity.<\/p>\n
It has been acknowledged that problems hampering prosecution
\nof human rights cases include different perceptions between the
\nAttorney General's Office and the National Commission on Human
\nRights about the elements of human rights violations, and also a
\nlack of financial resources to investigate and prosecute.<\/p>\n
A corresponding concern was expressed by Javier Ciurlizza from
\nthe Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He said amnesty
\nwas the last resort and applied only to low level crimes after
\nspecific conditions were met.<\/p>\n
Other experts, including Jorge Rolon Luna from the Paraguay
\nTruth Commission, also agreed that certain serious international
\ncrimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,
\ncould never be amnestied.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's Law No. 26\/2000 on Human Rights Court, however,
\nincludes genocide and crimes against humanity in its definition
\nof gross human rights violations, which can consequently be
\namnestied by the KKR.<\/p>\n
The experts however said that if the amnesty mechanism is
\napplied, it should be granted only to lower-ranking perpetrators
\nwho are proven to have carried out the orders and instructions of
\ntheir superiors.<\/p>\n
An effective system for witness protection then becomes
\nnecessary. Indonesia has no laws to protect witnesses in criminal
\nor human rights cases.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/amnesty-offer-would-not-reveal-truth-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}