Civilians remain scapegoats in human rights abuses

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?