Penyelesaian Non Yudisial Pelanggaran HAM Berat

Summary

The 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.