Not over yet<\/p>\n
Marsinah, the murdered labor activist, is long gone. But her
\nspecter, raised once again last week when the Supreme Court
\nexonerated seven people previously convicted of complicity in the
\ncrime, may be with us for a long time to come.<\/p>\n
More than two years after the killing, the memory of Marsinah
\nhas yet to fade. Indeed, her death seems to continue to cause
\nfresh ripple effects that raise new questions about the current
\nstate of Indonesia's legal and judiciary system, as well as the
\nnation's human rights conditions.<\/p>\n
To briefly freshen our memory of the case: On May 9, 1993, two
\nyears to the day last Tuesday, Marsinah's mutilated body was
\nfound in a forest near Nganjuk in East Java. Police
\ninvestigations brought to light the fact that she was killed some
\ntime between May 5 and May 8, 1993.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors were quick to point their finger at Judi Susanto,
\nthe owner of PT Catur Putra Surya, a Surabaya-based factory
\nmaking spare parts for watches. According to the prosecution team
\nhandling the case at that time, a scheme to kill the labor
\nactivist was worked out by the management, after a demonstration
\nled by Marsinah was staged by hundreds of workers on May 3 to
\ndemand higher wages.<\/p>\n
Prompted by public demands that the death of the labor
\nactivist be investigated, the authorities started to work on the
\ncase and Judi Santoso was arrested for allegedly masterminding
\nthe murder. Not long afterwards, his assistant, Judi Astono, was
\narrested for complicity.<\/p>\n
Judi Susanto was eventually sentenced to 17 years imprisonment
\nfor ordering the slaying and Judi Astono to four years in prison
\nfor allowing his office to be used for plotting the murder. In
\nNovember 1994, however, Judi Susanto was acquitted by the East
\nJava High Court for lack of proof. Oddly, on that same day, the
\nsame High Court endorsed the district court's verdict on his
\nalleged accomplice, Judi Astono.<\/p>\n
Further doubts on the authorities' handling of the case arose
\nwhen all of the defendants in the case retracted their earlier
\nstatements admitting to complicity, claiming they were forced by
\ninterrogators to sign the confessions under coercion.<\/p>\n
Under such circumstances, what was the public to believe? Was
\ntorture used to extract the admissions? Judi Susanto was reported
\nto have said at the time: \"I would not only have admitted to
\nkilling one Marsinah. If it was a hundred Marsinahs, I would have
\nadmitted to killing them, too. Who can bear such torture.\"<\/p>\n
In any case, the exoneration of the seven defendants by the
\nSupreme Court last week certainly opens up a good number of
\nquestions and possibilities. As things now stand, what is one to
\nthink of the testimonies of Lasmini and Susiawati, Judi Susanto's
\ntwo housemaids, who swore under oath that they were witnesses to
\ncertain aspects of the crime?<\/p>\n
And what about the testimonies given by other witnesses for
\nthe prosecution in the case? Wijono Subagyo, one of the defense
\nlawyers in the case, is reported to have stated his belief that
\nwith the exoneration of the defendants by the Supreme Court, all
\nthe witnesses heard in the Surabaya district court can be
\nconsidered to have committed perjury and could face legal action.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Marsinah case may be far from over. Hopefully a good
\nlesson will be learned: There must be better, surer ways to
\nsettle a case than by coercion, or even torture.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/not-over-yet-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}