Experts doubt merit of reconciliation commission

Moch. N. Kurniawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Experts and human rights activists have expressed doubts over the effectiveness of the planned Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) to resolve past human rights abuses, saying it would merely expose some facts but would not result in true justice.

Rachland S. Nashidik, program director of the Indonesian human rights group Imparsial, said the process of the KKR would only result in forgiveness, but human rights abusers would never get justice for their crimes.

"If we only seek truth, we do not have to set up a KKR. We just need a thorough investigation (by existing institutions). For me, the KKR, as stipulated in the current bill is meaningless," he said after a discussion on transitional justice and the contribution of a truth commission.

"We should also have a mandate to bring about justice via the courts," he added.

He also warned that such a commission would quite possibly become an instrument to whitewash all human right abuses that have taken place, thereby exonerating the perpetrators entirely.

Therefore, Rachland called on the House of Representatives to postpone the endorsement of the bill until the inauguration of new legislators next year.

Under the present bill, there is no clause stipulating that those found guilty of violating human rights, would automatically be tried in court.

The bill states that cases that are resolved by KKR will not be brought to court.

The country now has a human rights court, but it only has a mandate for the alleged human right violations in the Tanjung Priok incident in 1984, and the 1999 bloodshed in East Timor.

Priyambudi Sulistiyanto, a lecturer at the National University of Singapore, also expressed pessimism over the proposed role of the KKR in resolving past human right abuses.

He stated that there would be no guarantee that those found to have violated human rights would confess their crimes.

Furthermore, there was no record of other Southeast Asian countries succeeding with similar truth commissions as part of efforts to resolve human rights violation cases, he added.

"However, as a process in this transitional period, we should not oppose the establishment of the KKR as one alternative solution," he said, adding that the KKR process must also be conducted along with other possible solutions.

Baskara T. Wardaya, lecturer of the Sanata Dharma University, concurred with Priyambudi.

He said the commission should become the impetus to resolve rights violations but not the only solution.