Amnesty offer 'would not reveal truth'

Amnesty offer 'would not reveal truth'

Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

A number of international human rights observers have expressed
their pessimism that offering amnesty for human rights violators
would be effective in revealing the truth of their wrongdoings.

Based on experience in countries such as South Africa and
Sierra Leone, the experts concluded that the amnesty offer was
insufficient incentive for culprits to come clean about the past.

"In a country where the judicial system is weak and human
rights record is poor, there's an enormous doubt that the amnesty
mechanism will work," said Howard Varney, a former director at
the Sierra Leonean and South African Truth and Reconciliation
Commissions.

Two things could happen, he explained. First, people would not
come forward to apply for amnesty and speak the truth because
there was no prospect of prosecution, or, they would come forward
but not speak the truth, and yet be amnestied.

"In the end, what you have is no truth and no justice. In
Indonesia, where the incapability of prosecuting properly has
been evident, it's a mistake. Without serious prosecutions, the
mechanism will prove to be a massive failure," Varney warned.

He was commenting on the recently passed law on the
establishment of Indonesian Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(KKR), which offers amnesty to alleged human rights violators if
they confess to their offenses and if the victims, who would be
entitled to compensation, forgive them.

Those denying accusations against them would then be brought
before the human rights court to face justice, according to the
law.

Victims and families affected by various gross human rights
abuses in Indonesia have been disappointed with the country's
poor record in prosecutions, with most suspects implicated in the
cases being let off, while several others seem to enjoy immunity.

It has been acknowledged that problems hampering prosecution
of human rights cases include different perceptions between the
Attorney General's Office and the National Commission on Human
Rights about the elements of human rights violations, and also a
lack of financial resources to investigate and prosecute.

A corresponding concern was expressed by Javier Ciurlizza from
the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He said amnesty
was the last resort and applied only to low level crimes after
specific conditions were met.

Other experts, including Jorge Rolon Luna from the Paraguay
Truth Commission, also agreed that certain serious international
crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,
could never be amnestied.

Indonesia's Law No. 26/2000 on Human Rights Court, however,
includes genocide and crimes against humanity in its definition
of gross human rights violations, which can consequently be
amnestied by the KKR.

The experts however said that if the amnesty mechanism is
applied, it should be granted only to lower-ranking perpetrators
who are proven to have carried out the orders and instructions of
their superiors.

An effective system for witness protection then becomes
necessary. Indonesia has no laws to protect witnesses in criminal
or human rights cases.