RI needs truth commission

RI needs truth commission

Agung Yudhawiranata, Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy
(ELSAM), Jakarta

President Megawati Soekarnoputri's regime is still obliged to
deal with systematic human rights violations that occurred under
Soeharto's New Order regime -- mainly because the atrocities have
not been dealt with by the law, apart from the country's
obligations stemming from its ratification of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Most of the victims and their families have not received
acknowledgement, nor have they received adequate reparations
according to their rights.

A major problem for decision makers involved in this issue is
the debate on "pardon or punish".

There is the urgent need to cleanse post-Soeharto governments
of any influence from the prior regime. Meanwhile the new
governments also need to obtain compliance and legitimation from
the military, many of whose officers are active political actors,
as well as having been among the human rights abusers in the
past.

In a number of countries truth commissions have had
considerable success as one way to deal with past gross
violations of human rights, hence the call for such a commission
in the early days after the downfall of Soeharto.

The establishment of these commissions is often controversial.
There are those who are of the opinion that the criminal
punishment process could be harmed by the establishment of such a
commission, and therefore would violate the norms of
international law. But many doubt whether the legal process alone
is sufficient to settle accounts with past human rights
violations.

One argument against prosecuting past rights abusers is that a
new or reinstated democracy is frail, thus tolerance in the
handling of past abuses is necessary for democracy to survive.

If applying a particular international legal obligation
results in the "political suicide" of a government in transition
to a more democratic system, such an obligation can be postponed.

Commenting on calls for justice for past atrocities in his
country, the former president of Uruguay, Julio M. Sanguinetti,
once said: "What is more just, to consolidate the peace of a
country where human rights are guaranteed today or to seek
retroactive justice that could compromise that peace?"

Indonesia faces a complex political situation and uncertainty,
human rights violations in the recent or further past and a
relatively weak legal system and law enforcement. Therefore there
seems to be no favored method for dealing with the past
atrocities.

However, in achieving reconciliation, Indonesia must pass a
number of stages regarding the following issues: How to deal with
the legacy of oppression, how to restore the rule of law and
establish a culture of respect for human rights, how to
democratize the country's institutions and how to establish an
accountable government and an independent judiciary.

This at least means that the process, through genuine
reconciliation, needs the political will of the current
government to reveal, investigate and punish the perpetrators of
past rights violations, however powerful they may be; and the
will of the people, particularly the victims and their relatives
and families, to forgive but not to forget.

And probably most importantly of all, in order to lay a
concrete foundation for a new democratic society, the whole
process should be conducted fairly and transparently.

Truth commissions and criminal prosecutions are both important
in a democratic transition. Each serves unique purposes and are
complementary, and a full range of objectives may be met only if
there are both prosecutions and a truth commission.

In Indonesia, the Human Rights Court Act (Law No. 26/2000)
recognizes that not all gross human rights violations can be
resolved judicially, hence the provision for the resolution of
gross violations through a truth and reconciliation commission
that would be established through a separate law.

This recognition may be a good start.