Equal justice for all

Every person accused of an offense must be considered innocent until proven to be guilty in a court of law. This famous dictum, which is known as the principle of the presumption of innocence, is one of the cornerstones of all modern judiciary systems and is supposed to protect the person in question against unjust punishment.

However, even the best and most impartial of judiciary systems is run by individuals. And though they are people who are well versed in the practice and principles of the law through many years of study and experience, they are human beings all the same, ordinary mortals with passions, desires and aspirations.

Because of this, no judiciary system is perfect. Group or individual interests interfere and once such elements find their way into the system, justice is no longer blind. Everywhere, says Plato, there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger.

A rather disturbing hint that Plato's cynical remark could well contain more than a grain of truth is the recent case of Marsinah, the young woman labor activist whose mutilated body was found in East Java in May last year.

A brief recapitulation of the case follows:

As reported by the newspapers, the drama began with a labor dispute at the PT Catur Putra Surya watchmaking company in Sidoarjo, East Java, where Marsinah was working. Because of her leading role in the protest Marsinah was reportedly kidnaped and killed at the orders of the company's management. After her body was found, nine staff members of the company went on trial and were subsequently found guilty of complicity in the murder. They were given prison sentences which ranged from several months to 17 years.

To many observers of the case, the trial reeked from the start. Judges chose to disregard testimony in favor of the defendants, discarding its as insignificant or irrelevant to the case. Suspicions of foul play spread when the reputable National Commission on Human Rights, after investigations of its own, raised the probability of the involvement of "other parties", still untried and not yet apprehended to this moment, in the crime.

Then, last month, the Surabaya High Court cleared the major defendant in the case, Judi Santoso, the owner of the company, of the charges against him and ordered him released from jail. As a consequence of the High Court's ruling, suggestions have arisen that all the other defendants in the case also be released due to lack of proof of complicity in Marsinah's murder. After all, their cases were inseparably linked with that of Judi Santoso.

Instead, the Surabaya High Court upheld the guilty verdict against another defendant in the case, adding to the confusion.

Other unexpected developments may be yet to come. But the questions remain: To what extent are the suspicions of foul play justified? How right was Plato when he said that the interest of the stronger was the one principle of justice valid everywhere?

It is in this light that we believe that the granting on Saturday of the Yap Thiam Hien human rights award to Trimoelja D. Soerjadi, Judi Santoso's defense lawyer, assumes its true meaning. As the poet and intellectual Goenawan Mohamad said, Trimoelja is one of the few Indonesian lawyers who still has the courage to say what is right despite physical and mental intimidation.

Also, if it is true that, as Trimoelja asserts, the Indonesian criminal code does not provide effective sanctions for the violation of a defendant's basic rights, then clearly something should be done to correct the oversight. Equal justice for everyone is one of the prerequisites for fostering the kind of climate that is conducive to ensuring true resilience and stability.