Penyelesaian Non Yudisial Pelanggaran HAM Berat
Summary
TLDRThe transcript discusses serious human rights violations in Indonesia, citing directives from the MPR and specific laws from 1998, 1999, and 2000. It highlights the challenges in proving these violations in court due to technical and political obstacles, such as the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR). Despite the Judicial Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) identifying four cases with 35 suspects, all were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The government's focus is on compensating victims through non-judicial means, without neglecting judicial resolutions, in accordance with the 2000 law. The summary calls for continued efforts to address these issues in the parliament and emphasizes the importance of victim compensation over pursuing perpetrators.
Takeaways
- 📜 The script discusses serious human rights violations and references specific legal documents, including MPR Decree No. 17 of 1998, Law No. 39 of 1999, and Law No. 26 of 2000.
- 🔍 It is stated that past serious human rights violations must be investigated by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and resolved through judicial and non-judicial means, including corruption eradication courts (KKN).
- 🚫 There have been technical and legal challenges in criminal procedure law, particularly in proving the violations, which has led to difficulties in judicial resolution.
- 🏛️ Despite the challenges, there have been four cases with a total of 35 suspects, all of whom were declared free by the courts due to lack of evidence of serious human rights violations.
- 📚 The cases mentioned include post-referendum violence in East Timor, the Abepure case, the Tanjung Priok case, and a broadcasting case.
- 👥 The government is focusing on supporting the victims of these violations rather than dealing with the perpetrators, who are subject to judicial processes.
- 💡 Non-judicial resolution is emphasized as a way to support victims, which does not negate the ongoing pursuit of judicial resolution in accordance with Law No. 26 of 2000.
- 🤔 The script highlights a need for further discussion and debate in the House of Representatives (DPR) about the suitability and effectiveness of non-judicial resolutions.
- 📢 A recent press conference by the Attorney General's Office (Menkopolhuka) discussed non-judicial resolutions of serious human rights violations, indicating a continued focus on this approach.
- 🔄 The script suggests a shift in focus from the perpetrators, who have been tried in court, to the victims and their needs, emphasizing a victim-centered approach to resolution.
Q & A
What are the two main reasons mentioned for the serious human rights violations?
-The two main reasons are the orders from the MPR Decree No. 17 of 1998 and laws No. 39 of 1999 and No. 26 of 2000, which state that past serious human rights violations must be investigated and determined by the Human Rights Commission and resolved through judicial and non-judicial means.
What does the term 'non-judicial resolution' refer to in the context of the script?
-Non-judicial resolution refers to the handling of serious human rights violations outside the court system, such as through reconciliation or other forms of dispute resolution that do not involve formal legal proceedings.
What are the challenges faced in judicial resolution of serious human rights violations as mentioned in the script?
-The challenges include technical and legal issues in criminal procedure law, such as proof and the entire procedure, and political obstacles in the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR).
How many cases and suspects were there where serious human rights violations were determined by the Human Rights Commission?
-There were four cases with a total of 35 suspects determined by the Human Rights Commission.
What was the outcome for the 35 suspects in the cases determined by the Human Rights Commission?
-All 35 suspects were declared free by the court, stating that there was no evidence of serious human rights violations.
What are the four cases mentioned in the script?
-The four cases mentioned are related to post-referendum violence in East Timor, the Abepure case, the Tanjung Priok case, and the broadcasting case.
Why is the government focusing on supporting the victims rather than dealing with the perpetrators?
-The government is focusing on supporting the victims through non-judicial resolution to ensure they are not delayed in receiving assistance, as judicial resolution has proven difficult due to the challenges in proving the violations.
What is the role of the Attorney General's Office in the non-judicial resolution process?
-The Attorney General's Office, along with the Human Rights Commission, is involved in discussing and determining the non-judicial resolution process in accordance with Law No. 26 of 2000.
What is the significance of the discussion in the DPR regarding the suitability of non-judicial resolution?
-The discussion in the DPR is crucial as it will determine the acceptability and effectiveness of non-judicial resolution methods in addressing serious human rights violations.
What was the recent statement made by the Minister of Political, Legal, and Security Affairs regarding non-judicial resolution?
-The Minister of Political, Legal, and Security Affairs recently held a press conference stating that non-judicial resolution is focused on the victims and not the perpetrators, emphasizing that the judicial process has already been conducted for the 35 suspects who were declared free.
Outlines
🏛️ Human Rights Violations: Legal Challenges and Resolutions
This paragraph discusses the serious human rights violations (HAM) that have occurred in the past and the legal framework established to address them. It references specific laws and regulations, including the MPR decree number 17 of 1998 and laws number 39 of 1999 and 26 of 2000. The paragraph explains the dual approach of judicial and non-judicial resolution, including the role of the Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and the Supreme Court. It highlights the difficulties in proving these violations in court due to technical and political obstacles, particularly in the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR). The paragraph also mentions four specific cases with 35 suspects, all of whom were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the challenges in the judicial process for such cases.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Human Rights Violations
💡MPR Decree
💡Judicial and Non-Judicial Settlements
💡Komnas HAM
💡Corruption Eradication Commission (KPP)
💡Evidence
💡Acquittal
💡Non-Judicial Settlements
💡Victims and Perpetrators
💡Indonesian Legal System
💡Political Obstacles
💡Compensation for Victims
Highlights
Serious human rights violations are mandated to be investigated by MPR Decree No. 17 of 1998 and laws No. 39 of 1999 and No. 26 of 2000.
Violations from the past must be addressed by Komnas HAM through judicial and non-judicial means.
There are technical and political obstacles in the judicial process, specifically in criminal procedure law and the formation of an ad hoc human rights court.
Four cases with 35 suspects have been identified by Komnas HAM, all of whom were acquitted due to the difficulty in providing legal evidence.
The judicial process has been unable to conclusively address serious human rights violations, leading to the release of all 35 suspects.
The government plans to support the victims of human rights violations rather than dealing with the perpetrators.
Non-judicial resolution is a policy to support victims and does not negate the pursuit of judicial resolution.
The non-judicial resolution will continue to be sought in accordance with Law No. 26 of 2000, discussed by Komnas HAM and the Attorney General.
The decision on non-judicial resolution will be presented to the DPR for debate on its feasibility.
The focus of the resolution is on the victims, not the perpetrators, who are subject to judicial review.
There has been a recent press conference by the Minister of Political, Legal, and Security Affairs discussing non-judicial resolution of serious human rights violations.
Among the four cases, there are notable ones related to post-referendum opinions in Timor Timur, the Abeypura case, and the Tanjung Priok case.
The Aceh case is also highlighted as part of the serious human rights violations that have not been proven in court.
The characteristics of all cases determined by Komnas HAM are similar, indicating a pattern in the handling of human rights violations.
The difficulty in providing legal evidence in human rights violation cases often results in the acquittal of suspects by the courts.
The Supreme Court has also released suspects due to the inability to meet the burden of proof in human rights violation cases.
There is an ongoing effort to review and potentially reform the judicial process to better handle serious human rights violations.
Transcripts
pelanggaran HAM berat
alasannya ada dua
a ada perintah dari tab MPR nomor 17
tahun
1998 juga undang-undang nomor 39 tahun
99 dan undang-undang nomor 26 tahun 2000
yang isinya menyatakan bahwa pelanggaran
HAM berat di masa lalu harus diselidiki
dan ditetapkan oleh Komnas HAM serta
diselesaikan melalui jalur yudisial dan
non Yudisial pengadilan dan KKN
maksudnya
penyelesaian melalui dua jalur tersebut
gagal atau belum bisa dituntaskan
untuk dilaksanakan karena ada persoalan
teknis yuridis dalam hukum acara pidana
yaitu pembuktian dan seluruh prosedurnya
dan ada hambatan politis dalam
pembentukan KKR
yang penyelesaian Yudisial sebenarnya
sudah ada empat kasus dengan
35 tersangka empat kasus yang ditetapkan
oleh Komnas HAM dengan
35 tersangka semuanya bebas
oleh pengadilan dinyatakan bebas
dinyatakan tidak ada bukti terjadi
pelanggaran HAM berat karena memang
pembuktiannya secara hukum acara itu
sangat sulit dipenuhi sehingga selalu
dibebaskan oleh
pengadilan oleh Mahkamah sampai ke
tingkat Mahkamah Agung dan
yaitu 4 kasus itu pertama soal penjajah
pendapat di
pasca jajak pendapat di Timor Timur
kemudian kasus
abepura kasus Tanjung Priok
kemudian yang terakhir kasus penyiar
semuanya 35 tersangka dinyatakan bebas
dan tidak terbukti
melakukan atau terjadinya pelanggaran
HAM berat di dalam kasus-kasus tersebut
oleh karena karakteristik Semua kasus
yang dibuat oleh Komnas HAM itu sama di
dalam ukuran buku bacaannya maka agar
tidak tertunda-tunda
pemerintah akan menyantuni para korban
bukan
menangani para pelaku
yaitu menyantuni para korban melalui
penyelesaian
penyelesaian non Yudisial
B kebijakan penyelesaian non Yudisial
ini tidak meniadakan
penyelesaian Yudisial yang akan terus
diusahakan untuk diselesaikan sesuai
dengan undang-undang nomor 26 tahun
2000 yaitu dibahas oleh Komnas HAM dan
Kejaksaan Agung serta sesuai dengan
ketentuan pasal 43 dimintakan nanti
keputusannya kepada DPR sehingga nanti
bisa diperdebatkan di DPR tentang
kelayakannya
yang ketiga
saudara ini penyelesaian
yang kita lakukan ini akan sekop ini
adalah penyelesaian dari sisi korban
kita tidak bicara pelaku karena pelaku
itu adalah urusan Yudisial Yang Sudah
diuji di pengadilan dalam 35 tersangka
bebas tapi yang belum akan terus
berusaha
pemirsa baru saja anda menyaksikan
konferensi pers yang digelar oleh
menkopolhuka Mahfud MD menyatakan
terkait dengan penyelesaian non Yudisial
pelanggaran HAM berat tadi disebutkan
ada empat kasus dengan total 35
tersangka yang kemudian dinyatakan Bebas
oleh pengadilan tapi dari antara 4 kasus
itu ada diantaranya di Timor Timur
kemudian ada juga di abepura dan juga di
Aceh
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)