Sultan, Komnas HAM
Sultan: Our challenge is: if state officials are involved in human rights violations, they do not cooperate with us in terms of subpoenas or petitions we send them. Our measure of redress is to enlist the Commissioner from Jakarta to put pressure on these officials to comply.
Every year we investigate about 145 cases divided into themes of: civil and political rights; social cultural rights, protection for children, the elderly and the disabled. State officials who commit violations are: 1st the police, 2nd the local government, 3rd corporations 4th husbands who commit domestic violence.
Article 2: You mentioned that there are more complaints against police officers; what is the nature of these complaints?
Sultan: They are mostly acts of violence, including torture. Some of the cases manage to reach the courts for prosecution, for example, the case of Faizal and Budri. In this case the perpetrators were sentenced to 10 months to 1 year of imprisonment. There are some cases of land conflicts in which indigenous people were involved that reached the courts. Our number of staff to investigate and monitor these cases is very small.
In terms of coordination with the witness and victims protection agency, we do coordinate with them. We have been working as well with the LPSKA. However, there are concerns about the transparency and impartiality of members of the LPSKA staff. On one occasion the victims found out that some staff were related to the perpetrators.
Article 2: So, you mean there is no transparency in terms of processing the provisions of protection to witnesses?
Sultan: Yes, there is no transparency. For instance, in the Sijunjung case, they were asking for protection for the families of the victims. Up to now they have not received any assistance, not even a letter informing Komnas HAM about what protection will be given to the victims and their families. This is one of our problems.
Article 2: Are state officials cooperating with Komnas HAM?
Sultan: Partly-yes. If there is an investigation some of them come but others do not. Those who actually do come are from the companies, while those who do not come are State officials. Some State officials are quite cooperative most being from the local government level.
In terms of investigation by the court, they are cooperative. But, at the end of the trial, the sentences meted out to the perpetrators are very lenient.
Article 2: We are curious about police attitude towards the use of torture in conducting investigations. Why do police torture suspects when they conduct investigations and why do they think they can make use of torture?
Sultan: Police torture because some do not have sufficient understanding about human rights. This ignorance persists even though there is a parliament issue regulation that police should not use torture against suspects. The high-ranking officials, of course, understand about human rights; they know that you cannot torture as well. However, what I found is that the lower level police officers, the investigators, the ones you have in substations, they actually do not understand that torture is always wrong. They think that using torture is useful in conducting criminal investigations.
Another reason the police use torture is: it is the easiest and quickest way to obtain information. They want to be seen as officers who can effectively and efficiently conduct their investigations. In the end, torture benefits the officials. For example, if the lesser-ranked officials want to get promoted, they conduct quick investigations to solve the cases quickly.
Article 2: So, how do police and even the military or the public officials understand the principle of the absolute prohibition of torture? Do they grasp the severity, the absolute nature of torture or do they think it’s an ordinary form of abuse or crime?
Sultan: The understanding that you are talking about is that freedom from torture is an absolute right. I don’t think they have fully comprehended that idea yet. Even though the convention has been ratified by Indonesia, in cases of torture we can only use the Penal Code, which is actually less severe.
Article 2: I have one last question. Like the Philippines, Indonesia also has a history of authoritarian rule. For 30 years, during Soeharto’s regime, torture was a State policy and sanctioned by the government as a form of punishment and interrogation. Komnas HAM was created in 1993 as a result of demands by the people to provide remedies for their complaints of torture.
My question is: First, has there been a transition in terms of the State’s attitude towards the development of law after the restoration of democracy and in terms of the use of torture as no longer being a State policy according to the standard of the law; second, what is the attitude of the victims now towards the Komnas HAM in comparison to before 1998? Were there more complaints before 1998 or were there more complaints after 1998?
Sultan: Yes, there are positive changes in terms of the attitudes and behaviour of public officials. Transformations are gradually taking place. At the level of the politicians, we have this law in human rights; we have also ratified the ICCPR. The government actually uses rights orientation on implementation or the implication of laws. Notwithstanding all of this, torture is still happening.
In relation to the victim’s perception of Komnas HAM, his opinion is: before 1998 Komnas HAM was actually quite well respected because some of the Commissioners during that time were honourable persons. After 1998, the number of complaints increased but interestingly Komnas HAM became less respected by the people at large. I am not sure why. Maybe there is an internal factor, or maybe its current Commissioners are not ready to cooperate with each other yet.
On the other hand, the victims would like their complaints to be handled very quickly whereas for us it is not that simple because there are limitations in terms of our mandate.
Article 2: Thank you very much.
