Era Purnama Sari, LBH Padang
Era: We were colonized by the Dutch so many of our laws and legal systems were influenced by the Dutch. In the criminal justice system there are two main laws: first, the Penal Code; second, the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Penal Code was written by the Dutch ages ago. We use the Criminal Procedure Code originally written by the Dutch, but amended in 1981. If you compare the proficiency of the current Criminal Procedure Code with the one written by the Dutch they are not the same anymore. Human rights concepts and principles have been adopted. Before 1981, torture was allowed under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Article 2: After this amendment in 1981, were attempts made by the victims, the families or the lawyers to assert these concepts and principles to demand accountability for the period 1981 to 1998?
Era: You mean what did the victims do to force recognition of their rights?
Article 2: Yes, whether they have asserted their rights through legal mechanisms like prosecution and the courts, as operative during Soeharto’s period. We want to know what actions people took, if any.
Era: Under Soeharto’s regime, there was widespread violence. Much of it actually contributed to gross human rights violations. Of course, during that time there were no prosecutions against Soeharto because he was powerful and held all the power.
Torture of individual victims also took place. But, needless to say, the victims did not have the courage to submit complaints to the police or the prosecutors because it was a very authoritarian regime which involved all sections of the government. The judiciary were actually Soeharto’s appointees who supported him. Therefore, no one had the courage to challenge any area of the government. All efforts to prosecute torture cases and gross human rights violations only took place after the reform period. After 1998, there was a law enacted on human rights, but before that there was nothing.
Article 2: We are aware that after 1998, there was a law enacted on the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court. From what we know, none of the findings conducted by Komnas HAM resulted in any policeman and or member of the military being punished for violations. There were convictions but the offenders received light sentences. In fact, if they were convicted they still remained in military service. We want to know why. What is the reason for this?
Era: None of the cases were successful.
My observation is: when Indonesia was trying to reform, the actors who wanted to reform the country were not prepared for the results. They were not ready in the sense that they lacked sufficient knowledge. They had no idea what would happen next. They just wanted to remove Soeharto as quickly as possible. In actuality, what did happen after the Reform was that all the important, influential positions were still occupied by Soeharto’s friends. Basically there was no punishment for the police and government officials who broke the law despite the law on the Human Rights Court.
After the reform, until 2011, 84 commissions were established by the government. Many of them actually related to law enforcement. The law enforcement agencies included the Anti- Corruption Commission, the Judicial Commission and the Witnesses and Victims Protection agency. Komnas HAM is one of those. It does not have power and its authority is still not clear.
Komnas HAM can only make recommendations. People working for Komnas HAM admit to themselves that the organization is a complementary one, the concept of democracy a symbol. They are like a condiment or a decoration. Yet, they still see the country as beautiful and an ideal. Komnas HAM complained that it is quite difficult to get appropriated money from the state budget. Some Commissions and State institutions are deliberately neglected.
I recall that one of the members of parliament mentioned that Komnas HAM is not a respectable body because even experts in the law would not apply to be a member of this institution. They take complaints, enter them in a data base and that is about all they can do.
And in the instance of the torture of two minors, there were no recommendations. This sad conclusion came about even though the local Komnas HAM and the Komnas HAM Commissioner from Jakarta, conducted the investigation. Their findings were for the prosecution of the case. The Commissioner who conducted the investigation was nevertheless very brave in making a public statement saying that the victims did not commit suicide.
Article 2: Are you talking about the case of Faizal and Budri?
Era: Yes, it was a case of premeditated murder which had a very interesting twist to it. Even though the Commissioner had made the public statement that it was not a suicide, when you read the investigation report there is no mention of premeditated murder or suicide. This means that there is a gap between the public report and the official report that they published.
(For details about this case, see: SPECIAL REPORT: A facade of justice for torture victims in Indonesia, at: http://www.article2.org/pdf/v12n02.pdf)
Article 2: In some cases did Komnas HAM make some recommendations? For example, there are cases in which they did make recommendations and in which they identified the perpetrators. There are also circumstances where the Attorney General’s Office caused obstructions to justice by not filing charges for prosecution. I would like to know whether this is allowed by law and why it happens.
Era: The reason is simply because there is no enforcement of the law. There is no way to enforce recommendations made by Komnas HAM. In the case above it was decided by law. In the strict sense it was not a violation of the law because once they obstruct the process they make a statement that appears to be legal by saying there is no evidence. If the investigation conducted by the police is not good enough according to the prosecutors, the prosecutors can say they will leave the case with the police. That is one way to stall a case and it can go on for years and years.
Article 2: Do you think it is more a matter of politics than the law itself?
Era: It is a matter of both politics and the law itself. In relation to the law if you see the political context, of course, it answers as well. So, the perpetrators of these violations, no longer in power, still have influence. They have people in various places in government, whom they trust; who control and influence others. So, it’s not the individual contacts but rather the people they control, that they indirectly influence. That is why it is so difficult to ask for prosecution.
Once I spoke with a staff member of the Human Rights and Law Minister. The person basically said: if they were to admit that the 1965 communist massacre took place, can you imagine how much compensation would have to be paid out? How could we manage?
Article 2: They said it openly?
Era: No, not in public, but in a hall.
The biggest challenge human rights activists in Indonesia have these days is that human rights is no longer a hot topic. Now the discussion focuses on corruption; everyday people talk about corruption, everyday people say they are concerned about corruption. Children, peasants– they all talk about corruption. It demonstrates that General Prabowo, a human rights violator and member of the military who was responsible for the abduction of activists in 1997-1998, is still very, very popular in society.
No matter how many campaigns in Indonesia have been carried out by different organizations against General Prabowo, accusing him of human rights violations, the general public doesn’t care about these claims. Therefore, I do not think it presents a significant obstacle for him in seeking the presidency, no matter how loud people scream about human rights.
(Editor’s note: In March 6, 2014, JakartaGlobe reports the result of a survey in an article: “In Military We Trust? Strongman Nostalgia Runs Strong Among Indonesian Voters” indicating that 60 percent of Indonesians would vote for a Presidential candidate in the upcoming July 2014 elections with a military background)
