Aceh's inconsistent law is a means of repression

Aceh's inconsistent law is a means of repression

Otto Syamsuddin Ishak, Jakarta

Law enforcement is one of the Indonesian government's
strategies for the settlement of the war in Aceh. Which law does
the government seek to enforce? Who will enforce the law and how?
Is this law enforcement based on morality or is it merely a
political tool?

From the legal perspective, political and moral relations are
in a heated competition. The law is indeed a venue where politics
and morality compete, either when the law is drafted or when it
is implemented.

There is a clear distinction between the law as a political
product and as a moral product. If the law is a political
product, its substance is to protect the ruling powers and their
political instruments, and an instrument to justify the state,
where the ruling elite takes shelter. If the law is a moral
product, its substance is to protect the morality of individuals,
the community or the state per se. The law is then an instrument
to reveal the truth and provide justice.

Aceh is a region where conflict has simmered for a very long
time. It is also a region that has just been devastated by the
December's massive earthquake and tsunami. As such, Aceh is a
region where the law and its implementation are the least
consistent.

When Aceh was under military rule, during the military
operation region (DOM) period, through most of the 1990s, there
was a rape case involving an Acehnese woman and a soldier
deployed to Aceh. According to the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR), that is a human rights violation. Of course, to find the
truth, the right judicial court should be a human rights court.
However, the case, involving a soldier from North Sumatra
province was quietly transferred to a military tribunal in Medan.

The second case is also on rape, which can even be categorized
as sex slavery, against a number of women. The rapes took place
in military barracks in South Aceh during the post-DOM period
(2001). The military's solution to this case, was to relocate the
victims to other regions and arrest all the human rights
activists, who were snooping around trying to investigate the sex
slavery case. The victims were persuaded, with some compensation
and an offer to be hired as female soldiers. Finally, the victims
were used as instruments to attack human rights activists who
were branded as people that had defamed state's institutions.

The third case was a group rape perpetrated a number of
soldiers against a number of small girls and women in the early
days of the 2003 martial law. This is also a human rights
violation. However, part of this case was processed through a
military tribunal, while the remaining part of the case was
settled through acts of terror against the victims and their
relatives.

The three cases referred to above demonstrate three models of
law enforcement.

First, transferring the case from a human rights court to a
military tribunal.

Second, the superiors of the perpetrators and the institution
to which the perpetrators belong took over the case and then the
superiors of the perpetrators offered compensation to the
victims. The superiors used the victims as a means to attack the
process of truth revelation.

Third, the perpetrators, their superiors and their
institutions shelved the case through acts of terror against the
victims and their relatives.

It is important to note that crimes against humanity were
committed intensively and massively in the early days of martial
law, which began in May 2003.

There are two types of judiciary systems in Aceh. One was
developed by the Indonesian military (TNI) and the other one by
the Acehnese Tradition Council (MAA).

In the post-tsunami days in East Aceh regency (March 2005),
the TNI accused a man and his son of committing a crime as GAM
members. The son was subjected to an extra-judicial killing
before his trial began, then some 200 villagers were mobilized to
witness a customary trial for the father. Also witnessing this
customary trial were a number of SGI (intelligence task force)
soldiers and members of Company C of 503 Infantry Batallion. One
of the military men, took the position as a mediator in this
court.

Chief of the MAA of Lhokseumawe, Usman Budiman, said that a
customary court was set up at a village level. The reason is that
today the public is not sufficiently knowledgeable in terms of
Acehnese customs. The court serves to restore the well-mannered
behavior of the public so that it will conform to Acehnese
customs.

So, there are two versions of customary courts in Aceh.

The first version is the soldiers'. According to this version,
a customary court is used as an instrument to try Acehnese by
Acehnese. This version is used to manipulate cases related to
crimes against humanity so that they will become criminal cases
that the local customs will settle. The soldiers, who are armed
and involved in summary execution, would like to create their own
image as mediators (in a conflict being promoted as horizontal.)

The second version is that of the MAA. In this version, a
customary court is used to make Acehnese behave better. A
customary court is an instrument to reform the Acehnese people in
terms of the perception of the customary norms of the elite.

And there is still another law that is only imposed on the
Acehnese, namely the court based on the Islamic law, called the
sharia court.

In its implementation, a sharia court controls morality and
criminal acts. Moral control encompasses the implementation of
religious services, educating the young, and making sure everyone
is dressed according to Koranic code. Corruption and murder do
not fall within the sharia court's jurisdiction.

Acehnese of lower socio-economic classes can be reached by the
instruments of civil law and public criminal laws. Acehnese of
the higher classes are relatively untouched by the customary laws
and the Islamic law. Corruption, for example, is not an act
violating either the customary legal system or the Islamic law.

Therefore, law enforcement in Aceh can have a different
outcome depending on the legal subjects and objects. For the
subjects (the ruling elite and the upper classes), the law is a
means for self-protection, and at the same time a legal
instrument of repression.

The writer is the Program Director of human rights
organization Imparsial, Jakarta.