Government not serious in handling rights abuses

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)