Civilians remain scapegoats in human rights abuses

Bayu Wicaksono, Civil Society Alliance for Democracy (Yappika), Jakarta

Former East Timor Governor Abilio Jose Osorio Soares was recently found guilty of human rights violations under several articles of Law No. 26/2000 on human rights tribunals and sentenced to three years in jail. In response, Soares made an intriguing statement: "This East Timor case purely concerns a long-standing horizontal conflict. Why should I bear the brunt? How could I have dispersed the mass rally of the PPI (pro- integration group)? They were all armed. I might have been killed." This assertion contains a lot of riddles. Wasn't he the official who addressed the rally? Did he do it under threat?

Then, what about the power and authority of the governor in making a decision? Could he have asked the regional military commander to dissolve the mass gathering believed to be involved in the rampage? If Soares had done that, he should have issued an official instruction to the military and police as evidence. If the instruction had been sent without response, the responsibility should have already been shifted to the security authorities.

Another aspect worth noting in the ad hoc tribunal's trial of the case of East Timor human rights abuses was the presence of international pressure through the UN Commission against Torture, recommending that the Indonesian government guarantee the function of an ad hoc human rights tribunal for the case of East Timor, with the capacity of considering the examination of all human rights violations occurring from Jan. 1 to Oct. 25, 1999.

Article 1 paragraph 1 of the law stipulates that human rights constitute "a set of rights inherent in the basic nature and existence of man as God's being and bestowed by Him, which shall be respected, held in high esteem and protected by the state, law, the government and everybody for the sake of honoring and safeguarding human dignity and integrity."

The global urge for such recognition of human rights can also be noticed in the serious attitude shown by the UN Security Council with its resolution 1264 in 1999, condemning acts of violence in East Timor's post-referendum period. The resolution also appealed to the Indonesian government to establish a human rights tribunal and assigned the government the mandatory international task of trying those responsible for the post- referendum incidents in East Timor. It obviously implies that the government has a moral burden in connection with the various cases of human rights mistreatment.

It came as a surprise when the ad hoc tribunal's panel of judges acquitted former East Timor police chief Brig. Gen. Timbul Silaen and five other officers -- former Covalima military commander Col. Liliek Koeshadianto, former Suai military district commander Maj. Sugito, former Covalima regent Col. Herman Sedyono, former Suai district military chief of staff Maj. Achmad Syamsuddin and former Suai police precinct chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Gatot Subiantoro -- of human rights abuses.

With the acquittals, due apparently to a lack of evidence, international rights bodies are further losing their confidence in our law enforcement. The logic that should be linked with the military and police presence is how the armed institutions assigned to protect all civilians could condone the existence of another opposing, and armed, civilian group.

As indicated in the UN recommendation, a prominent thread can be drawn between the crimes against humanity in East Timor and the structure of power. Based on the power division, the regional police chief and regional military commander are on par with the governor in responsibility within the same territory.

While the governor is responsible for human rights crimes committed by an armed civilian group, the same is true of the national police, in this case the regional police chief. If the police remain incapable of preventing human rights abuses, they have the right and are obliged to seek military assistance, in this case under the regional military commander.

However, the ad hoc tribunal's panel of judges under Andi Samsan Nganro ignored the power division, namely the structure between the regional civilian hierarchy (province administration) and the military (regional command), and the relation between the governor and military commander, as well as the local civilian authority (regency) and the military district command. Was it because the six officers who were declared innocent came from the military and police, while only Soares is a civilian?

If the ad hoc tribunal is willing to settle cases of post- referendum East Timor seriously, they are still bound by Law No.5/1998 on ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment.

If the tribunal fails to apply the logic of power structure, one can be sure that all the military and police officers will be acquitted. Only Soares, a defendant representing civilians and bureaucrats, has got a prison term. In turn, the international community will continue to witness that the judicial institution in Indonesia remains far beyond upholding justice in human rights violations involving military and civilian suspects.

Will the cases of Aceh, Papua, Poso and Maluku be settled in the same fashion, with civilian bureaucrats continuing to lose and be declared guilty, while no connection is recognized between the military and the armed militia?