Impunity may reign again after E. Timor verdicts

Impunity may reign again after E. Timor verdicts

The Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal has acquitted six military and
police officers charged with crimes against humanity for failing
to prevent the bloodshed in East Timor in 1999. The Jakarta
Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked about the verdicts to Asmara Nababan
of the National Commission on Human Rights.

Question: How do you view Thursday's verdict acquitting the
military and police officers?

Answer: Based upon the preparations made for this ad hoc
tribunal and the trial process itself, I'm not surprised at all.
The prosecution was very weak, so were the processes of providing
evidence, testimony and so on.
Would it make any difference if the prosecutors were to appeal?

Not really. But the positive side is that we can learn from
this case, about all the shortcomings in the legislation, the
recruitment of judges and prosecutors, the court procedures and
the relevant laws. If we can improve all these, the ad hoc Human
Rights Tribunal will be able to deliver justice. So many other
cases are waiting.

If we cannot learn anything and if business is just conducted
as usual, then Indonesia will suffer a great loss as our courts
will be unable to deliver justice.
It seems the judges only dared to sentence a civilian, former
East Timor governor Abilio Jose Osorio Soares, and let all the
military and police officers off the hook, including those in
civilian positions. Your comment?

Abilio may appeal and be let off too. In his case, the most
distressing aspect was the distortion by the judges regarding the
legal doctrine on what constitutes crimes against humanity.
Extraordinary crimes in international jurisdiction are subject to
at least 10-years imprisonment, while ordinary crimes in our
criminal code have no minimum sentence.

And the judges did not declare that Abilio should be
imprisoned straight away, either.

Were the judges afraid of the military?

Well, the government's commitment was doubtful from the
beginning (in staging the tribunal). The necessary government
regulations as required by Law No. 26/2000 on the human rights
court are those on witness protection and compensation for
victims; these were issued only one day before the trial.

It was not fear of the military but more this lack of
government commitment. And even if the judges did have competence
in this area of international law -- they only had four days
training -- the prosecution was also very weak.

The defendants claimed, among other things, that they were
either acting on orders or that the situation was out of control
because the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) had
triggered dissatisfaction and the subsequent unrest. Your
comment?

A competent judge with wide knowledge would have easily
ordered the prosecutor to summon (a representative of) UNAMET and
cross-checked the allegations on whether there was indeed
cheating (in counting ballots on the self-determination
referendum).
Will the international community now demand that the suspects be
brought before an international human rights tribunal?

At least the suggestion will be raised again; they earlier
stopped when Indonesia promised it would hold its own trial. We
got the chance and various international observers monitored the
trial day by day. So we can't lie and say we've met the minimum
standards of an international tribunal. The result will be more
pressure (for an international court).
But won't we have some leverage, what with the United States
seeking as many allies as possible in the war against terrorism?

It will be the decision of the UN Security Council; the U.S.
or Russia, or China could veto it. But international pressure
will continue to be a pebble in our diplomatic shoe.

Then normalization of military relations (between Indonesia
and the U.S.) will not happen because a prerequisite is the
accountability of officers in cases of human rights' violations.

What of the impact on society?

A wider consequence will be the absence of any progress for
our future and that the violators of human rights will enjoy
greater impunity. Upholding and protecting human rights will be
much more difficult while it will be easier for officers to
violate human rights as they know they will walk free.

There was no deterrent effect from the (Thursday) verdict;
deterrence would have made officers more cautious in performing
their duties. How human rights are treated in Papua and Aceh, for
example.

Those involved in such a catastrophe can walk free -- what
about other cases where only, say, five were killed?
Could the National Commission on Human Rights have played a role
in this verdict? Earlier, the special team investigating
atrocities in East Timor couldn't agree on what constituted gross
violations of human rights.

No. In the final report we reached an agreement. There was no
question that gross human rights violations occurred. And we put
Gen. Wiranto (then TNI chief) on top of the list of officers who
should be brought to trial -- but his name was dropped by the
Attorney General (then Marzuki Darusman).

The acquitted officers must feel that they have received
justice; they were only carrying out orders and the political
situation at that time seemed to demand that Indonesia's
government forces help the pro-integration side win despite a
commitment to neutrality.

That could well be true. But the question of whether justice
has been served must be viewed from the perspective of the
victims. Did the victims of the 1999 (bloodshed) in East Timor
receive justice?