Human rights and justice

Human rights and justice

About one month short of a year after a passerby chanced upon
her horribly mutilated body lying in a deserted spot in a rice
field in East Java, the ghost of Marsinah continues to haunt this
nation's conscience with unabated vindictiveness. A few questions
concerning the case appear to have been answered during the
trials of the past weeks in Surabaya and Sidoarjo, but the
answers to many more remain a mystery.

Now, in the latest turn of developments surrounding the
Marsinah case, the National Commission on Human Rights appears to
have confirmed suspicions of foul play. In what is easily its
most critical statement so far, the Commission says it has found
irregularities in the way the suspects were arrested and treated.
It is urging the authorities to look into the charges and to
punish the parties responsible.

A number of points mentioned in the Commission's cautiously
phrased statement deserve our attention. First, the Commission
says it has found indications of "various forms of torture,
physical and mental." Second, it has found evidence of
unwarranted intervention by the local military agency in the
affairs of PT Citra Putra Surya. Third, the Commission says
"other people" than those already arrested and tried were
possibly involved in the murder of the 23-year-old labor activist
and suggests that the authorities look into the matter.

Clearly, the Commission's unexpected findings can help shed at
least a bit more light on this national cause celebre and clear
up some of the questions that linger. On the other hand, the
paper somehow serves to place a perhaps unintended emphasis on
some of the more disturbing aspects of the case. What do the
Commission's findings mean?

Quite evidently, the 23-year-old factory worker was targeted
because she was a nuisance to her employers. That this is a case
of murder is also quite obvious, considering the ghastly wounds
and bruises that were found on her body. But who actually ordered
the murder and who raised the hand that killed her? How was she
killed, and where? And if a plot was involved, who took part in
the conspiracy?

Sure, all of those questions were apparently answered during
either the interrogations or during the trial of the nine
suspects presented by the authorities. But what is one to believe
when almost all of them later retracted their statements on the
grounds that they were extracted by torture? Why have all of the
judges been so stubborn in refusing to listen to complaints of
torture and in insisting on basing their judgments only on the
written confessions obtained during the pre-trial procedures?

Surely, one of the most disturbing questions which the
Commission's findings raises is this: If all, or even some, of
the earlier charges of torture and coercion were true, then why
has it been so tough for the defendants, the witnesses, the
defense lawyers and the lawyers of the Legal Aid Institute to
persuade the courts to re-examine the facts?

In view of all these allegations -- assuming for now that this
is what they are -- of foul play, we believe it would only serve
to bolster the prestige of this country's judiciary if its
authorities would at least lend an ear to those charges.

As Napoleon once said, there can be no authority without
justice.

As for the unexpected statement of the Commission on Human
Rights, it surely disproves the skepticism which many observers
have accorded it since its foundation. We do believe that some
important strides have been made lately in the improvement of
human rights in this country. Let us hope that this new spirit
will also touch all of those entrusted with bringing light to the
actual events surrounding Marsinah's death. Certainly we believe
that a simple re-examination of the facts in the case is not too
much to ask for if the meting out of justice is our concern.