Skepticism clouds inquiries into shootings, atrocities

Once powerful generals are facing inquiries into various crimes. Munir, co-founder and advisory board member of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) shares his reasons for pessimism with The Jakarta Post. An excerpt of Thursday's interview follows:

Question: How do you feel about the inquiries by the National Police Headquarters, the Attorney General's Office and that by the Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violations (KPP HAM) in Tanjung Priok respectively investigating the 1996 attack on the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) Headquarters, East Timor atrocities in 1999 and the 1984 shootings in Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta?

Answer: I'm pessimistic about all those cases because of the lack of clarity in the inquiries. But the National Police are relatively doing a better job; they are serious. They are showing that the police want to improve themselves.

They are working in the context of wanting to show a firm attitude toward the incident (of July 27, 1996) although they are constrained in their legal capacity when it comes to military elements (reportedly also involved in the case).

I respect the police more in these inquiries compared to the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM, which set up KPP HAM).

Why do you respect the police more?

The police, in their limited capacity, seem to be doing their best while Komnas HAM, which now has all the authority it needs under the new law (on the commission), is not doing enough.

For example, they asked Gen. (ret) L.B. Moerdani where he was at the time of the incident on Sept. 12, 1984. They're approaching this like an ordinary criminal case.

This is a case of crimes against humanity; they should have asked for instance, whether he as then armed forces commander had intelligence information prior to the incident and what measures were taken.

The level of planning on the part the state had in the violence that took place could then be revealed.

Then the inquiry is a setback; KPP HAM in East Timor attempted to reveal the chain of command involved.

This is a problem of political will, of capacity and of the political interests of the Tanjung Priok investigating team. The East Timor inquiry can be a model of proper investigation (of similar crimes).

Komnas HAM then faced threats of an international tribunal regarding East Timor. Now there's no such pressure and political interests such as members' affiliation to the military influence (investigators.)

Such shortcomings would only confirm allegations that the Komnas HAM does not care about Muslims.

I fear the inquiry (into the Tanjung Priok case) will remain only a gesture to people's disappointment (that the case until now was never investigated). Imagine an investigator asking a (Tanjung Priok) victim, "Do you support Pancasila (state ideology)?"

What about the East Timor inquiry?

How could the Attorney General's Office announce that only five significant cases would be looked into? Again the approach of regular crimes is used here.

I was shocked to know that only 21 people would be investigated; if only two institutions were investigated -- the Indonesian Military (TNI) and National Police -- at least 130 officers would have to be questioned. Then there's at least 21 commanders of 21 militia groups.

This is just a lot of stalling for certain interests.

What would those interests be?

International trust of the government's seriousness in investigating (atrocities in) East Timor, following the results of KPP HAM in East Timor (involving Munir --Ed.), is being used to ward off possibilities of an international tribunal.

Now the international community is watching whether Indonesia really has the capacity (to continue investigations on East Timor).

Is there hope of victims and their families getting some justice?

Urging the legal system to settle human rights violations is inevitable. This is the key (to providing justice) and the consequence of giving Komnas HAM more authority.

But Komnas HAM worked more effectively when it was only based on a presidential decree instead of a law. This means there is an urgent need to revamp the structure, personnel and role of the commission.

All human rights violations are now dependent on the commission which it cannot handle in its present state.

There's the kidnapping cases (of activists), Lampung, Irian Jaya (areas of atrocities against civilians suspected as rebels), Maluku (alleged lack of impartiality of security forces in communal violence) ... waiting for the commission would be like waiting for Godot.

How will ongoing inquiries affect attempts at national reconciliation?

There's a new problem now. I feel that while there's a push to set up this commission of truth and reconciliation, the prolonged debate entailed has been used as an excuse for stalling.

There's a new kind of immunity here, as if all inquiries (on rights violations) should wait for the outcome of this debate on the commission.

We should not wait for that; legal process should continue as we have the laws, and also the government regulation in lieu of the law allowing the establishment of human rights violation courts.

Now we see odd things; the attorney general says this regulation is still effective, although the House of Representatives revoked it.

But Komnas HAM rejected the regulation, saying it had been revoked by the House. So with regard to East Timor, the regulation could be used, and in relation to the Tanjung Priok case it was not possible. (anr)