Skepticism clouds inquiries into shootings, atrocities

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)