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?