Avoiding pitfalls in police investigations

The public's perception of the police is in the spotlight after incidents occurred which suggest that some officers might have erred in their duties. Tjetje Tadjudin, a robbery witness, died in custody at the Bogor police precinct. A controversy erupted over a suspect in the killing of journalist Fuad Muhammad Syafrudin (Udin) in Yogyakarta. These are some cases in point. Koesparmono Irsan, a former deputy of operations with the Indonesian National Police, explores the issue.

Question: What do you say about the finding of the National Commission on Human Rights, that the arrest of a suspect in a journalist's killing in Yogyakarta was a violation of human rights?

Answer: We have to pay attention to two things. First, the procedure. Second, the target. To reach the target, a procedure is needed. A procedural mistake -- for example, arresting a suspect without an arrest warrant -- is usually easier to correct. But once you have the wrong target, you have to give more serious attention to the mistake.

I think what the rights body found out recently is an honest input for the National Police. They have to take it seriously so that, in the future, they will be able to avoid similar mistakes and difficulties.

Actually, I can also say that Udin's and Tjetje's case are among so many similar cases the police have handled in the past. I'm very sure about that. So the procedure of arresting and questioning a suspect must have become a familiar part of their job. Therefore, it is inexcusable that such a mistake still occurs.

In this case, I think, it would be better for the local police chiefs (in Bogor and Yogyakarta) to give honest explanations to the public about what has actually happened. The National Police, however, serve the public, not certain individuals. They are supposed to protect the community, not certain people only.

Q: What is the first thing a police officer should do before he conducts an investigation?

A: They should have a thorough understanding of the case. Is it true that the suspect they have arrested is the real killer? If it is, prove it through empirical evidence, honest evidence. Not evidence provided by certain persons with particular interests. If they have the wrong suspect, on the other hand, they have to be brave enough to admit it. There's no need to be ashamed.

In fact, in this case, they have repeatedly claimed they are on the right track. If this is true, we have to give them the chance to prove what they have in court. Let the court decide who is wrong, who is right.

Once a case is brought to court, the attorneys should also do their jobs properly. They have to refer to the facts, not public opinion. If they have doubts regarding the results of the police's investigation, they have the right to conduct their own investigations before filing it with the court. They also have the right to monitor the police's investigation. But once they issue a PK-21 letter -- a letter clarifying that a police investigation is correct and has been completed -- the police's task is over. It's now up to the attorneys to bring the case to court.

Q: What about Tjetje's case, in which a suspect died in custody at a police precinct?

A: That's human error. Such a thing does not only occur in Indonesia. It happens everywhere, although they are all under oath to do their jobs properly. But that doesn't mean we should tolerate such things. We have to make efforts to avoid fatal errors like that.

Q: It's been said that pressure from senior police officers often led to such things taking place...

A: Again, it's human error. Why should the senior officers exert pressure? However, I think it's understandable. They have to complete their questioning in a limited time. If they fail to complete the questioning within 20 days, they have to ask the district attorney for more time. This is not easy, because the attorney will drop the case if he or she feels uncertain about it. This means the police lose the chance to prove their thesis about the case.

Sometimes, they also become discouraged when the suspect refuses to confess while in the meantime, they have already obtained evidence that supports their allegation. In this case, we cannot make a generalization. Each case is different from others. Similarly, one officer is different from another.

Q: Is a suspect's testimony such an important thing that the police will do anything to get it?

A: A police investigation is usually based on the preliminary clues which are supported by evidence. There are five types of evidence: testimony from witnesses, from experts, documents, files listing the allegations, and testimony from the suspect(s).

Here, the suspect's testimony is submitted last. That means that a suspect's testimony is meaningless without other supporting evidence. And each piece of material evidence itself must have its own convincing proof. Every police officer must acknowledge this, as this is clearly mentioned in paragraph 184 of the Criminal Code Procedures.

Q: What is your suggestion to avoid such abuse during a police interrogation?

A: Once the police find out that all the evidence supports the allegation, they should present the case right away in front of the attorneys, the lawyers, and the experts. Anyone connected with the case is allowed to hear it in an informal hearing. If the suspect still rejects the allegation, thus ignoring the supporting evidence, the police can ask for input from other parties, including the suspect's lawyer.

This (case hearing), can be conducted routinely; once a week, every two days, or whenever it is needed.

I also suggest that every police interrogation must be witnessed by the suspect's lawyer. By so doing, the interrogation officers are prevented from beating the suspect.

Maj. Gen. (ret) Koesparmono Irsan is now a lecturer at the Police Science College and rector of Bhayangkara Jaya University.