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.