Government not serious in handling rights abuses

The military's reluctance to answer the continued calls for justice remains a major obstacle to bringing rights offenders to court, legal expert and rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis said recently in an interview with The Jakarta Post.

Question: The list of rights violations in the country continues to grow while few of the cases have been resolved. How do you see the situation?

Answer: Rights abuses commonly involve the state apparatus. The perpetrators here include the military and the National Police. Human rights are still a luxury in Indonesia. Rhetorically, many parties, including the government, military and police, always mention human rights, but there is a large difference in the conception (of human rights). The people and the state have different perceptions.

Q: Many cases of rights violations are not prosecuted thoroughly; what actually happens?

A: The government does not have the will to conduct serious legal proceedings and prosecute and punish rights abusers. Many cases stop halfway. Many bodies, including the Legal Aid Institute, the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence and the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association, have lots of data and information about human rights abuses, but there's no legal implementation. We only see impunity.

Q: Are court-martials enough?

A: Like it or not, it's a fact that court-martials never punish rights abusers properly. This makes people lose their trust. There's a sense that the court only protects its personnel or protects itself. We saw in one case a military officer name his superior in a hearing, but we never saw this higher ranking officer punished or even summoned. What we saw was only the replacement or dismissal (of the concerned officer), which does not correlate with legal action.

Q: What can we do?

A: There should be no impunity. Never allow crime without punishment. Abusers must be taken to court and be punished properly under the related law. But we only see limited (rights) abuse cases taken to court and many of the (abusers) are not punished. Impunity prevails. The Trisakti case (in which four student protesters were shot), for example, involved military officers, but the punishment was not comparable to the crime.

Q: What are the consequences of this?

A: The public does not trust the credibility of the courts. They think it is all a cover-up. When the East Timor case emerged, the United Nations Security Council called for an investigation which would lead to an international tribunal. Many Indonesian human rights activists supported the idea because they think Indonesia is a nation which never pays attention to justice and is not sensitive to human rights abuses. Activists and the public regard the judiciary in the country as a weak body with no power. They also think it's highly vulnerable to interference related to power and money.

Q: The government has paved the way for a human rights tribunal; will this satisfy the public?

A: The government is not in favor of the international tribunal. Minister of Law and Legislation Yusril Ihza Mahendra is planning the (domestic) human rights tribunal, but people who are seeking justice, including the victims of human rights violations, will never trust the (courts) if the quality of the judges remains the same. The important thing is to change the system.

Q: Do Indonesians in general care about human rights?

A: Compared to 25 years ago when the human rights campaign began, a lot of people are now aware of human rights. What has happened in East Timor, Aceh, Irian Jaya cannot be separated from the human rights movement. People want their rights to security, education and freedom. I'm afraid more demands for self- determination will arise in other areas (of the country) if human rights remain mere rhetoric in Indonesia.

Q: Many people have become apathetic about human rights in Indonesia; what do you think?

A: Yes, many people do not believe that the government is committed to resolving human rights violations. But there are many non-governmental organizations which will keep on working. In the end, we can't stop change. Human rights can't be stopped.

Q: What do you think of the prospects of a joint tribunal?

A: A human rights tribunal is an institution which needs maximum preparation in terms of human resources and the legal aspects, so bringing human rights abusers before a joint tribunal is the most realistic option. This is possible according to Indonesia's judiciary.

Q: Can it really work?

A: The problem is the military's commitment. So far there have only been statements from the military. If a commission on human rights violations in East Timor, for instance, recommended a rights abuser be taken before a tribunal, suddenly the military could deny that the officer concerned was a military officer. When there's a commitment from the military and an ad hoc judge, then we can hope to see an independent tribunal.

Q: Talks of reconciliation in the country continue, and there have been suggestions of forming a commission modeled after the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What do you think?

A: If human rights tribunals and joint tribunals cannot be established, and with the poor credibility of court-martials, a commission on truth and reconciliation is the alternative. This is one last chance. We don't want impunity anymore after we were forced to accept it for over 30 years.

Q: How would the country begin to establish such a commission?

A: It must be set up based on a law, not a presidential decree. The commission's rights and obligation, as well as its mandate, must be very clear. The members must be credible. Once I told President Abdurrahman Wahid that such a commission should be considered as an alternative.

Q: Calls to end the military's dual sociopolitical role, which is considered one of the causes of rights abuses, continue. Your comment...

A: The actors in human rights abuses come from the military because of the repressive military doctrine. Calls to end the dual function are legitimate. Calls for the military to return to barracks are final. But there is still much resistance to this because of the (military's) political and economic interests. (icn)