In the name of justice

Law enforcement is supposed to be one of the four components of the ongoing joint operation in Aceh, which the government launched on May 19. The other three elements are security restoration, humanitarian assistance, and the empowerment of local government. But precisely what law the government is trying to enforce is not clear because on the same day it was launched, President Megawati Soekarnoputri declared martial law in Aceh and effectively put the province under military control.

As far as law enforcement within this joint operation is concerned, the question that comes to mind is whether the authorities -- in this case the military or the police -- are there to administer martial law, or civil law.

What we see on the ground is a combination of the two. In one instance, a civil law is enforced; at other times, martial law. In one case, a civil law is applied; in another, it is martial law. This confusion is most apparent in the way that the authorities in Aceh are handling the detention of people suspected of being part of, or supporting, the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM).

Some of these people were arrested by the police and are in their custody. At the same time, the military has been conducting its own arrests of suspected rebels. The ones in police custody face charges ranging from terrorism to treason, offenses that carry severe sentences, including capital punishment. Those under military custody are less fortunate: they are not even being given due process of law.

Most, if not all, the suspects, whether they are in police or military custody, have also been denied or deprived of legal counsel, even as they face these very serious charges.

The military could invoke many of the powers under martial law in denying suspects their basic rights, but such practice does not bode well for the image of the ongoing joint operation. It smacks of hypocrisy, because the military as well as the police are violating the laws they are supposed to enforce.

The success (or failure) of the joint operation depends to a large extent on the support of the people of Aceh. Winning their hearts and minds is crucial. The government's performance in the operation to enforce the law is no less important than the other parts of the operation. That means consistency, transparency and nondiscrimination in applying the laws.

At the moment, there are effectively two sets of law being enforced simultaneously in Aceh. The point where civil law ends and martial law begins (or vice versa) is not clear. The decision as to which law to apply is taken arbitrarily to suit the interests of the powers that be.

This discriminatory practice is apparent in the way the military handles wrongdoings by its members. While we laud the military decision to hold impromptu tribunals for soldiers who are found to have violated the law, the punishments meted out by the tribunals defy the public's sense of justice.

A case in point is the two-and-half to three-and-half year prison terms meted out by the military tribunal to three Army soldiers for rape on Saturday. Although the soldiers were charged with rape under a criminal code applicable to civilians, they were given the minimum sentence.

This is a gang-rape committed by people in uniform, who were assigned to protect the lives of the local people. Their sin went more than rape. It included abuse of power and abuse of trust.

The judges (who are from the military) should have given the maximum sentence, which, under the Criminal Code is 12 years (this is laughable, but we have to make do with this until we review the Criminal Code). The three soldier-rapists should have been severely punished, not only because they deserve it, but also in order to deter other soldiers from committing the same crime.

Alas, from the way that the joint operation in Aceh has been conducted, it is clear that the restoration of security has taken priority above all else. All the other elements in the joint operation, including law enforcement, have been subordinated to support the goals of the security operation.

In fact, it is highly doubtful whether a law enforcement operation can be effective when a state of emergency has been invoked in which the military has powers to suspend many laws.

The law enforcement operation can only be successful if the chief objective of the exercise is to uphold justice. To this day, the operation has been conducted in so far as it supports the military goals, nothing more, nothing less. Justice, especially justice for the people of Aceh, does not feature prominently as an objective of this operation.

Not surprisingly, it has had little success.