Commission sways between public trust and govt goodwill

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)