Commission sways between public trust and govt goodwill

In connection with the third anniversary of the National Commission on Human Rights, the commission's Vice Chairman, Marzuki Darusman, talks to The Jakarta Post about the commission and its activities.

Question: How do you view the commission's relevance, now that it has been flooded with thousands of complaints?

Answer: The number of complaints lodged cannot be used as a yardstick to determine the public's acceptance of the commission. Quality is much more important. I'm not saying we have to abandon those cases. We handle those cases whose solutions have positive effects on related government policies in regards to the case or other similar cases.

This can be effectively accomplished if other governmental and private institutions are working well. If not, the commission will only be overwhelmed by their cases.

Cases dealing with land disputes, divorce, labor, etc. are certainly beyond the commission's focus. They are more appropriate for police departments or justice institutions to deal with. Yet, we are still flooded with such cases.

Q: Can you give an example of a qualitative solution, resulting in positive changes, which the commission has brought about?

A: Cases related to human rights violations by government officials, especiamly members of the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI). Human rights violations committed by ABRI members in the past had mostly been settled administratively. They preferred to move the culprits to other places or give them a disciplinary sanction rather than bring them to a military tribunal.

Now it has changed. Legal settlements seem to be more preferable than administrative ones.

Q: Some say the many complaints the commission receives reflect the misperception the community has about human rights and the job of the commission. Your comment?

A: That's right. About 30-40 percent of the complaints we receive have nothing to do with human rights violations. But we cannot just turn them down, can we? So we turn the situation into an opportunity to educate them about human rights and give them the right understanding of what our real task is. This is even much more effective than classical counseling, because it is linked to real cases.

Q: How do you find the government's response to the commission's recommendations on alleged human rights violations?

A: We have given hundreds of recommendations to governmental institutions, including local ones. Their response varies. But so far, we are satisfied.

It's also interesting that most of them also write back to us to inform us about the follow-up action they are taking, although they don't have the obligation to do so. It comes as a moral or ethical obligation to them.

Q: Some suggest that a special institution is needed to push the government to do what the commission is recommending. Do you agree?

A: The commission doesn't have any power to summon institutions like a police precinct or a court. But so far, we haven't encountered any difficulties in inviting them to have a hearing with us and the party complaining to us.

Given such a condition, I don't think such a special institution is needed.

Q: Before the commission was set up, the public was skeptical about its integrity and doubted its independence. What do you think about that now?

A: During the first six-month period of its existence, most people considered the commission as a government-designed institution. They were indeed skeptical about it.

During its second six-month period, after we handled big cases, like those concerning Marsinah, Timika, Liquisa and Rancamaya, it was the government who regarded the commission as an opposition institution.

Now, we are in between. People trust the commission's independence and the government shows its goodwill (not to interfere with the commission's activities).

Q: Many people think that only a few of the 25 members of the commission are active in doing their jobs ...

A: We are divided into three subcommissions: counseling, research and monitoring. Unfortunately, the degree of people's attention and media coverage given to each of the subcommission's activities are not the same. Activities carried out by the subcommission on monitoring seem to be more interesting to them.

That's why those in that subcommission look busier than others. In fact, all of us are doing our jobs. Thus, it's only a matter of publicity.

Q: Ideally, how much time should a member spend working for the commission?

A: It's difficult to say how much time we should spend. Except for the secretary-general, what we have here is not full-time work.

In this case, we apply a minimum requirement: We have to be there anytime we are needed. In fact, we are. We are available 24 hours a day to hear any complaint. Most of us even receive complaints while we are at home.

This is part of our commitment as members of the commission. We make ourselves available for the community; 25 of us constitute 25 access doors to the commission. We always try to avoid bureaucracy.

Q: What if it is turned into full-time work?

A: It's not applicable for a national commission like this, which has been specially founded to handle specific affairs. A full-time schedule is more suitable for routine types of work like that of governmental institutions or other formal ones.

Q: Do you have any code of ethics in investigating cases in which a member of the commission happened to be involved?

A: We experienced two cases in which a member of the commission was indirectly involved. First, the Timika case, in which Freeport was indirectly connected and the husband of a member happened to be one of the Freeport directors. Second, the July 27 riots, in which one of our members also happened to be a member of the Indonesian Democratic Party.

In both cases, those members having direct or indirect relation to the cases voluntarily detached themselves from the cases.

Actually, we have been discussing about setting up an official code of ethics, but there are still many things to consider. For the time being, we count on our commitment to produce only fair judgments. Therefore, anything disturbing or preventing us from doing so must be avoided. (swa)