Justice for Soeharto and Guterres<\/p>\n
The need for a respectable judiciary was highlighted yet again
\nduring the recent visit of a UN Security Council delegation to
\nthe National Commission on Human Rights, of which Charles Himawan
\nis a member.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): There are two seemingly unrelated events these
\ndays but which are in reality very relevant to each other. The
\nfirst is former president Soeharto's appeal to the Supreme Court
\nagainst the Jakarta High Court's recent decision to reopen his
\ntrial while the second is the insistence of the United Nations to
\nbring former East Timor militia leader Eurico Guterres to court.<\/p>\n
The desire of the United Nations to bring to court all
\nsuspects of human rights violations is long known. Last week it
\nwas again emphasized by the visit of a UN Security Council
\ndelegation, headed by Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia.<\/p>\n
This writer and his colleagues had the privilege to receive
\nthis delegation at the office of the National Commission on Human
\nRights office last Thursday, Nov. 16.<\/p>\n
During the cordial discussion an understanding developed that
\nwhat is urgently needed now is a reliable judiciary and to bring
\nto trial to this type of judiciary, suspects of both human rights
\nviolations and of economic and financial mismanagement.<\/p>\n
The latter are known to be of particular interest to the
\nInternational Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the young and
\nvibrant international fund managers that roam the Internet.<\/p>\n
It is simply not right if our object is only to bring the
\nculprits of Indonesia's ill to court without regard to the
\nrespectability of this court. To date the court lacks this
\nrespectability.<\/p>\n
The emphasis of the UN Security Council delegation and the
\ninternational community, and also Indonesian reformists, should
\ntherefore be on the establishment of a respectable judiciary.<\/p>\n
To bring to trial both Soeharto and Guterres before the
\nexisting judges would only invite confusion, laughter and further
\nderogation of law enforcement. The question is: What must the
\ngovernment do in the immediate term to create a reliable and
\nrespectable judiciary?<\/p>\n
The first thing that it must do is to work closely with the
\nHouse of Representatives to add one or two clauses in the
\nexisting legislation on the power of the judiciary.<\/p>\n
This amendment should stipulate two items. The first is
\nthat in trying suspects of financial mismanagement like Soeharto
\nand suspects of human rights violation like Guterres, the panel
\nof judges should be composed of career and noncareer judges (or
\nsometimes called ad hoc judges).<\/p>\n
The philosophy behind this is two-pronged. One is the
\nassumption that a great number of career judges are already
\npolluted with corruption, collusion and nepotism and therefore
\nnoncareer judges should be invited to participate in the trials.<\/p>\n
The other is the assumption that there is technical know-how
\nof presiding over a case which only career judges are equipped
\nwith. No doubt there are still good judges out there.<\/p>\n
Some people have praised the judges of the Supreme Court who
\nhad overturned a lower court decision, and handed down the 18-
\nmonth jail sentence for Hutomo \"Tommy\" Soeharto. Others, however,
\nhave refrained from joining this hasty compliment.<\/p>\n
Involving noncareer judges in the panel of judges for trials
\nsuch as Soeharto's and his son's is an idea already crystallized
\nin the draft bill on the establishment of a Human Rights Court
\nthat has recently been approved by the House.<\/p>\n
The involvement of noncareer judges may apply to the district
\ncourt and way upward to the Supreme Court, and to both general
\nand human rights courts.<\/p>\n
The second item that should be stipulated in the amendment to
\nthe legislation is to make it possible for judges who disagree
\nwith the majority to write a \"dissenting\" opinion, and this
\nshould be made valid both for economic and financial, and human
\nrights crimes. In other words, it should be made applicable for
\nboth the human rights court and the general court.<\/p>\n
Dissenting opinion institution is necessary to make the court
\ntransparent and accountable as a U.S. chief justice, Warren E.
\nBurger once said \"... the appearance of justice can best be
\nprovided by allowing people to observe it.\"<\/p>\n
Given such a composition of judges and the possibility for
\nthem to deliver dissenting opinions, this would ensure acceptance
\nof the international community and the Indonesian reformists on
\nwhatever decision the court might make -- whether they find
\nSoeharto and Guterres guilty or innocent.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/justice-for-soeharto-and-guterres-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}