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.