East Timor case a whitewash

East Timor case a whitewash

From Jurnal Indonesia

The Attorney General's Office announced on Sept. 1, 2000, 19
"possible suspects" in the East Timor violence.

General Wiranto and other leaders of the Indonesian Military,
which were earlier recommended by the National Commission on
Human Rights (Komnas HAM) after an investigation, were not
mentioned. This was because of manipulation of, and deviation
from, the meaning of human rights crimes by the Attorney
General's Office.

The United Nations International Commission of Inquiry and
Komnas HAM have both said that the East Timor violence involved
"extraordinary human rights crimes" that belong to the category
of "crimes against humanity".

In the hands of the Attorney General's Office, the results of
the case have been moved aside and minimized in terms of meaning
and viewpoint to "ordinary crimes".

This deviation of meaning and viewpoint became clear when the
Attorney General's Office broke up the violence into five big
cases. With such a strategy, the office intended to cut the chain
of political responsibility and, at the same time, free the
decision makers from prosecutions. It only snares those
responsible for local security. Whereas the assumption of the
occurrence of extraordinary crimes is closely related to the
state's political policies. Moreover, the East Timor debacle was
an international case, with policies regarding it impossible to
be made without prior approval of Jakarta.

By shifting the category to "ordinary case" the Attorney
General's Office is gambling with the UN's trust in Indonesia's
ability to administer the process of law entrusted to it, which
should be "international in character".

The UN has emphasized that a genuine settlement of the past
human rights abuses of a nation should be made by that particular
nation itself, for the sake of a just and long-lasting national
reconciliation.

That is why holding a national trial is the best way to try
those involved in human rights violations, as well as the first
step to put an end to "the cycle of impunity" that has so far
been enjoyed by the Indonesian Military.

In general, there is something worrying that is endangering
the direction and objective of reform in the Attorney General's
Office of this republic.

In past cases of both political and economic crimes, the
strategy as well as measures taken for the settlement of the case
-- the weakest and minimum -- was obvious.

The perspective and legal constructions produced and set forth
in the court were weak, clearly giving ample opportunity for
large-scale economic and political criminals to escape.

There is a very strong impression that criminals are being
intentionally freed from punishment by means of legal processing.

The legal process of the recent cases, including the release
of Djoko Tjandra, the Soeharto trial and the announcement of the
19 East Timor suspects have shown it.

HENDARDI

Chairman

Association of Indonesian

Legal Aid

Jakarta