Bringing justice to Indonesia’s military court
Bringing justice to Indonesia’s military court
Jakarta, Indonesia – Indonesia’s military court is in serious need of reform, for the sake of national security as well as the protection of human rights. The existing system of military justice is rife with violations of human rights and impunity for the perpetrators.
Sept. 24 marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Yap Yun Hap, a student at the University of Indonesia who died in 1999 during the country’s political transition. Yap Yun Hap was demonstrating against the National Security and Safety Bill when military officers shot him. The bloody incident, which took place in Semanggi, Jakarta, is remembered as the Semanggi II incident.
This incident, in which 11 people were killed and more than 200 injured, was one in a series of violent acts against student demonstrators in 1998 and 1999, during the political transition that followed the fall of former President Soeharto.
In the first incident in Semanggi in November 1998, known as Semanggi I, 18 students were killed and 109 persons injured during a demonstration demanding that the new president deal with Indonesia’s economic crisis.
Also, 23 student activists were kidnapped before the fall of Soeharto in May 1998, while four from Trisakti University died and scores were injured during demonstrations at the university demanding democratic reforms and the resignation of Soeharto.
The victims’ families, who demanded that the state be responsible for their actions, were forced to struggle against various political and legal obstacles. In 2001, a special committee set up to examine the Trisakti and Semanggi cases in the House of Representatives stated that there were no serious human rights violations in either case.
The decision was a political one, which has hampered the legal process sought by the victims’ families. In 2002, the military court for Trisakti punished nine members of a police bomb squad. In 2003, the military court also prosecuted the military perpetrators in the Semanggi II case.
Members of the special armed forces were suspected of kidnapping the 23 student activists. However, they were convicted of kidnapping only the nine who were subsequently found, not the others who still remain missing. The trial also failed to indict Prabowo Subianto â?? who was running mate to former Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri in the recent general elections â?? despite the evidence against him.
These convictions failed to satisfy the families of the victims, for several reasons. The courts did not try high-ranking officers; they convicted only lower-ranked personnel. The victims’ families were not informed of the trial or invited to attend it, and they had difficulty obtaining information on its progress. Furthermore, the court was filled with military personnel, in an apparent sign of support for those on trial.
In an effort to seek justice through the Human Rights Court, the National Commission for Human Rights conducted an inquiry and concluded that there were in fact serious human rights violations in the Trisakti and Semanggi cases, and recommended that the attorney general conduct an investigation.
However, the attorney general refused because a special committee in the House of Representatives had already declared there were no serious human rights violations during those incidents, and military trials had already taken place in the Trisakti and Semanggi II cases.
However, the House recommendation was a political process and should therefore be disregarded, as it served no purpose other than obstructing the legal process. On the other hand, the military courts failed, as the legal proceedings they conducted were not independent, competent and impartial.
Emmanuel Decaux, an independent expert from the United Nations on the issue of administration of justice through military courts, said in 2003 that military personnel could be beyond the law if the principles of independence, competence and impartiality were not guaranteed in military courts. A study by the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights also showed that military courts tend to have problems in the context of human rights.
A developing country must be willing to reform its systems and culture to respect human rights if it seeks to implement good governance. It needs policies and laws that reflect this attitude, and it should ratify U.N. conventions on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as improving the security sector. Reforming the military court system to respect human rights principles is an important aspect of this process.
The House of Representatives has placed on its list of priorities a proposal to amend the law on military courts, and formed a special committee to draft such a bill. However, this has created rifts within the House and between the House and the government. A hot issue is the scope of the jurisdiction and authority of a military court.
A military court’s authority should be limited to offences committed by military personnel in the context of their military duties. It should not interfere in the functions of a regular court in conducting investigations into human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture, and in prosecuting and trying the perpetrators accused of such crimes.
The Indonesian president has stated that he would support the trial in civilian courts of military personnel who commit crimes. This must be followed up and implemented in policy.
The current debate between the government and the House regarding the involvement of the military police in investigating general crimes is no longer significant; it will only destroy the integrated criminal system.
It is therefore appropriate that the House legalize the amendment to the military court bill immediately, since the amendment is part of the security sector reform, with its mandate to apply human rights principles.
—
(Indria Fernida is deputy coordinator of the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence, KontraS, in Jakarta, Indonesia. She holds a law degree from the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. KontraS provides legal defense for victims of human rights violations and deals with issues related to transitional justice and security sector reforms.)
Bringing justice to Indonesia’s military court
Sept. 24 marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Yap Yun Hap, a student at the University of Indonesia who died in 1999 during the country’s political transition. Yap Yun Hap was demonstrating against the National Security and Safety Bill when military officers shot him. The bloody incident, which took place in Semanggi, Jakarta, is remembered as the Semanggi II incident.
This incident, in which 11 people were killed and more than 200 injured, was one in a series of violent acts against student demonstrators in 1998 and 1999, during the political transition that followed the fall of former President Soeharto.
In the first incident in Semanggi in November 1998, known as Semanggi I, 18 students were killed and 109 persons injured during a demonstration demanding that the new president deal with Indonesia’s economic crisis.
Also, 23 student activists were kidnapped before the fall of Soeharto in May 1998, while four from Trisakti University died and scores were injured during demonstrations at the university demanding democratic reforms and the resignation of Soeharto.
The victims’ families, who demanded that the state be responsible for their actions, were forced to struggle against various political and legal obstacles. In 2001, a special committee set up to examine the Trisakti and Semanggi cases in the House of Representatives stated that there were no serious human rights violations in either case.
The decision was a political one, which has hampered the legal process sought by the victims’ families. In 2002, the military court for Trisakti punished nine members of a police bomb squad. In 2003, the military court also prosecuted the military perpetrators in the Semanggi II case.
Members of the special armed forces were suspected of kidnapping the 23 student activists. However, they were convicted of kidnapping only the nine who were subsequently found, not the others who still remain missing. The trial also failed to indict Prabowo Subianto – who was running mate to former Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri in the recent general elections – despite the evidence against him.
These convictions failed to satisfy the families of the victims, for several reasons. The courts did not try high-ranking officers; they convicted only lower-ranked personnel. The victims’ families were not informed of the trial or invited to attend it, and they had difficulty obtaining information on its progress. Furthermore, the court was filled with military personnel, in an apparent sign of support for those on trial.
In an effort to seek justice through the Human Rights Court, the National Commission for Human Rights conducted an inquiry and concluded that there were in fact serious human rights violations in the Trisakti and Semanggi cases, and recommended that the attorney general conduct an investigation.
However, the attorney general refused because a special committee in the House of Representatives had already declared there were no serious human rights violations during those incidents, and military trials had already taken place in the Trisakti and Semanggi II cases.
However, the House recommendation was a political process and should therefore be disregarded, as it served no purpose other than obstructing the legal process. On the other hand, the military courts failed, as the legal proceedings they conducted were not independent, competent and impartial.
Emmanuel Decaux, an independent expert from the United Nations on the issue of administration of justice through military courts, said in 2003 that military personnel could be beyond the law if the principles of independence, competence and impartiality were not guaranteed in military courts. A study by the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights also showed that military courts tend to have problems in the context of human rights.
A developing country must be willing to reform its systems and culture to respect human rights if it seeks to implement good governance. It needs policies and laws that reflect this attitude, and it should ratify U.N. conventions on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as improving the security sector. Reforming the military court system to respect human rights principles is an important aspect of this process.
The House of Representatives has placed on its list of priorities a proposal to amend the law on military courts, and formed a special committee to draft such a bill. However, this has created rifts within the House and between the House and the government. A hot issue is the scope of the jurisdiction and authority of a military court.
A military court’s authority should be limited to offences committed by military personnel in the context of their military duties. It should not interfere in the functions of a regular court in conducting investigations into human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture, and in prosecuting and trying the perpetrators accused of such crimes.
The Indonesian president has stated that he would support the trial in civilian courts of military personnel who commit crimes. This must be followed up and implemented in policy.
The current debate between the government and the House regarding the involvement of the military police in investigating general crimes is no longer significant; it will only destroy the integrated criminal system.
It is therefore appropriate that the House legalize the amendment to the military court bill immediately, since the amendment is part of the security sector reform, with its mandate to apply human rights principles.
—
(Indria Fernida is deputy coordinator of the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence, KontraS, in Jakarta, Indonesia. She holds a law degree from the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. KontraS provides legal defense for victims of human rights violations and deals with issues related to transitional justice and security sector reforms.)