Impunity may reign again after E. Timor verdicts<\/p>\n
The Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal has acquitted six military and
\npolice officers charged with crimes against humanity for failing
\nto prevent the bloodshed in East Timor in 1999. The Jakarta
\nPost's Ati Nurbaiti talked about the verdicts to Asmara Nababan
\nof the National Commission on Human Rights.<\/p>\n
Question: How do you view Thursday's verdict acquitting the
\nmilitary and police officers?<\/p>\n
Answer: Based upon the preparations made for this ad hoc
\ntribunal and the trial process itself, I'm not surprised at all.
\nThe prosecution was very weak, so were the processes of providing
\nevidence, testimony and so on.
\nWould it make any difference if the prosecutors were to appeal?<\/p>\n
Not really. But the positive side is that we can learn from
\nthis case, about all the shortcomings in the legislation, the
\nrecruitment of judges and prosecutors, the court procedures and
\nthe relevant laws. If we can improve all these, the ad hoc Human
\nRights Tribunal will be able to deliver justice. So many other
\ncases are waiting.<\/p>\n
If we cannot learn anything and if business is just conducted
\nas usual, then Indonesia will suffer a great loss as our courts
\nwill be unable to deliver justice.
\nIt seems the judges only dared to sentence a civilian, former
\nEast Timor governor Abilio Jose Osorio Soares, and let all the
\nmilitary and police officers off the hook, including those in
\ncivilian positions. Your comment?<\/p>\n
Abilio may appeal and be let off too. In his case, the most
\ndistressing aspect was the distortion by the judges regarding the
\nlegal doctrine on what constitutes crimes against humanity.
\nExtraordinary crimes in international jurisdiction are subject to
\nat least 10-years imprisonment, while ordinary crimes in our
\ncriminal code have no minimum sentence.<\/p>\n
And the judges did not declare that Abilio should be
\nimprisoned straight away, either.<\/p>\n
Were the judges afraid of the military?<\/p>\n
Well, the government's commitment was doubtful from the
\nbeginning (in staging the tribunal). The necessary government
\nregulations as required by Law No. 26\/2000 on the human rights
\ncourt are those on witness protection and compensation for
\nvictims; these were issued only one day before the trial.<\/p>\n
It was not fear of the military but more this lack of
\ngovernment commitment. And even if the judges did have competence
\nin this area of international law -- they only had four days
\ntraining -- the prosecution was also very weak.<\/p>\n
The defendants claimed, among other things, that they were
\neither acting on orders or that the situation was out of control
\nbecause the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) had
\ntriggered dissatisfaction and the subsequent unrest. Your
\ncomment?<\/p>\n
A competent judge with wide knowledge would have easily
\nordered the prosecutor to summon (a representative of) UNAMET and
\ncross-checked the allegations on whether there was indeed
\ncheating (in counting ballots on the self-determination
\nreferendum).
\nWill the international community now demand that the suspects be
\nbrought before an international human rights tribunal?<\/p>\n
At least the suggestion will be raised again; they earlier
\nstopped when Indonesia promised it would hold its own trial. We
\ngot the chance and various international observers monitored the
\ntrial day by day. So we can't lie and say we've met the minimum
\nstandards of an international tribunal. The result will be more
\npressure (for an international court).
\nBut won't we have some leverage, what with the United States
\nseeking as many allies as possible in the war against terrorism?<\/p>\n
It will be the decision of the UN Security Council; the U.S.
\nor Russia, or China could veto it. But international pressure
\nwill continue to be a pebble in our diplomatic shoe.<\/p>\n
Then normalization of military relations (between Indonesia
\nand the U.S.) will not happen because a prerequisite is the
\naccountability of officers in cases of human rights' violations.<\/p>\n
What of the impact on society?<\/p>\n
A wider consequence will be the absence of any progress for
\nour future and that the violators of human rights will enjoy
\ngreater impunity. Upholding and protecting human rights will be
\nmuch more difficult while it will be easier for officers to
\nviolate human rights as they know they will walk free.<\/p>\n
There was no deterrent effect from the (Thursday) verdict;
\ndeterrence would have made officers more cautious in performing
\ntheir duties. How human rights are treated in Papua and Aceh, for
\nexample.<\/p>\n
Those involved in such a catastrophe can walk free -- what
\nabout other cases where only, say, five were killed?
\nCould the National Commission on Human Rights have played a role
\nin this verdict? Earlier, the special team investigating
\natrocities in East Timor couldn't agree on what constituted gross
\nviolations of human rights.<\/p>\n
No. In the final report we reached an agreement. There was no
\nquestion that gross human rights violations occurred. And we put
\nGen. Wiranto (then TNI chief) on top of the list of officers who
\nshould be brought to trial -- but his name was dropped by the
\nAttorney General (then Marzuki Darusman).<\/p>\n
The acquitted officers must feel that they have received
\njustice; they were only carrying out orders and the political
\nsituation at that time seemed to demand that Indonesia's
\ngovernment forces help the pro-integration side win despite a
\ncommitment to neutrality.<\/p>\n
That could well be true. But the question of whether justice
\nhas been served must be viewed from the perspective of the
\nvictims. Did the victims of the 1999 (bloodshed) in East Timor
\nreceive justice?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/impunity-may-reign-again-after-e-timor-verdicts-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}