Victims of gross human rights violations have demanded the truth be revealed, including those who were responsible, and they can proceed with reconciliation.
By
DIAN DEWI PURNAMASARI
·4 minutes read
ADRYAN YOGA PARAMADWYA
Volunteers and activists take part in the 759th Kamisan Action in front of the Merdeka Palace, Jakarta, Thursday (12/1/2023). During this action, the Victims' Solidarity Network for Justice (JSKK) highlighted President Joko Widodo's acknowledgment and remorse for the occurrence of gross human rights violations in 12 past incidents. JSKK considers that these confessions and regrets are meaningless if they are not followed by concrete steps of legal accountability.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The rectification of history has not only been demanded by community groups who have been stigmatized due to the 1965-1966 incident. The same was demanded by a number of the children of heroes of the revolution so that the truth is revealed, including those who were responsible, and they can proceed with reconciliation.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) acknowledged that trying to process 12 incidents of past gross human rights violations, one of which is the 1965-1966 incident, was challenging. For one, it was not easy for investigators to collect evidence because these 12 incidents occurred long ago. However, some believe this could be overcome by a revision of the law on human rights courts.
Rianto Nurhadi, the third son of Maj. Gen. MT Haryono, one of the heroes of the revolution, when contacted from Jakarta on Friday (13/1/2023), appreciated the government’s acknowledgment and remorse over the 12 incidents of gross human rights violations that were investigated by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM). He said the government’s statement was appeasing.
However, a statement alone is not sufficient. The truth still needs to be uncovered, especially over who is at fault. Indonesia is a constitutional state, so it must be known who was responsible for these incidents.
“Up until now, we, the families of the heroes of the revolution, continue to wonder why our parents became victims. We want to know what actually happened. The state has to rectify history,” he said.
The reconciliation process
The rectification of history, according to Rianto, is a door to reconciliation between victims and perpetrators. The state should not have any unresolved historical burdens.
The rectification of history was one of the recommendations made by the Nonjudicial Resolution of Past Gross Human Rights Violations (PPHAM) team. The recommendation says that the state is expected to rewrite the currently acknowledged history and illustrate the events in a balanced and official version of the historical narrative while taking into account the human rights of those who were made victims.
Previously, when President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo expressed his acknowledgment and remorse over the 12 incidents of gross human rights violations, he added that nonjudicial solutions through the restoration of victims’ rights did not negate judicial settlements.
The AGO’s information and legal center head Ketut Sumedana said that the AGO would heed the President’s instructions. In 2021, the AGO formed a gross human rights violations task force. As a result, one case of gross human rights violations, namely the Paniai incident in Papua, went to trial in court.
“To this day, the task force continues to work and provide the Attorney General with input on the developments of and solutions for resolving gross human rights violations cases,” he said.
According to Ketut, the challenge of investigating gross human rights violations cases is that they are not easy cases. In addition to cases being past incidents, investigators also have difficulty in collecting evidence to build a case. Investigators do not want to be careless and want to ensure that the cases being investigated are feasible and can be proven in court.
Former PPHAM team chief executive Makarim Wibisono is of the opinion that the procedural law has been an obstacle, which thus far had made it difficult to prove cases of gross human rights violations in court. For this reason, he deemed it necessary to revise the procedural law in Law No. 26/2000 concerning the human rights court so perpetrators could be charged with the available evidence.
One of the procedural laws referred to is related to the differences in evidence that must be collected by Komnas HAM as the preliminary investigator and the AGO as the investigator. This difference is what often leads Komnas HAM to believe that its duties are completed. However, when this Piniai case was transferred to the AGO, it was found to have not met the formal and material elements.
As a result, the case was not immediately investigated. The AGO is also concerned that if a case was forced to trial, the defendants would be acquitted. “Perhaps, [considering] the legal and political atmosphere at the time the law was drafted, there were still [President] Soeharto’s subordinates who did not want to get caught by the law. Thus, the procedural law has been made complicated so that it is difficult for the perpetrators to get caught. In my opinion, the human rights court law needs to be revised to change this procedural law,” said Makarim.
This, for example, can be illustrated by the Paniai incident, where the only defendant in the case, Maj. Isak Sattu, was acquitted by the panel of judges.
