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.