Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Fighting Impunity in Nepal

Addressing impunity key to Nepali peace process: Experts KANTIPUR REPORT KATHMANDU, JAN 26 -

National and international experts on transitional justice have urged political parties to see the issue of addressing impunity as intrinsic to the peace process and to establish without delay the key instruments of transitional justice as proposed in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Speaking at an interaction organised by Advocacy Forum in the Capital on Tuesday, they said political parties harbour the misconception that any effort to address impunity would be tantamount to disturbing the peace process and this has been contributing to frustration among victims of the decade-long war.

"Each stakeholder of peace should understand that without addressing the prevalent culture of impunity, peace cannot be institutionalised," said Chairman of Asian Federation of Involuntary Disappearances Mugiyanto. "We are here to support the victims of enforced disappearances and encourage the government to address their appeal for justice."

Mugiyanto said as most Asian countries lack instruments to deal with disappearances, Nepal has an opportunity to set an example in this regard.

Ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance would provide Nepal the framework to deal with cases of enforced disappearances that occurred during the decade-long war, said Professor Gabriela Citroni, one of the drafters of the Disappearance Convention. "Disappearance is a history of many unanswered questions, such as where, how, when, who was disappeared by whom."

Speaking at the same programme CPN-UML leader Pradip Gyawali said though the Constituent Assembly Committee on Fundamental Rights has successfully incorporated a provision on retroactive law that would provide constitutional validity to the instruments of transitional justice to be set up by the government, there were chances that other political parties may chop off the provision anytime. "Even during drafting of the Interim Constitution, UML was the only party that stood for keeping a provision on retroactive laws, the parties [Nepali Congress and UCPN (Maoist)] involved in the conflict agreed to remove it," said Gyawali, stressing that rights activists should stay alert this time around too.

Transitional justice instruments such as the proposed commissions on enforced disappearances and on truth and reconciliation will become unconstitutional if the CA fails to incorporate a provision in the new constitution allowing the government to enact laws that function retroactively. As per general principles of law, no government can enact laws to punish any past activity, which were not criminalised by the law of that time. However, this does not apply when it comes to dealing with past crimes such as enforced disappearances, which are listed as crimes under international human rights law. Since the proposed commissions, by nature, would function retroactively, a constitutional provision would be necessary to give them constitutional legitimacy.

Source: http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/01/26/top-stories/Addressing-impunity-key-to-Nepali-peace-process-Experts/307123/

Additional news on video: http://nnv.nepalnews.com/videoplay1.php?id=3426

Also can be seen here: http://www.kantipuronline.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/26/Nation/Delivery-of-justice-provides-impetus-to-peace-process/4443/

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Haluan bernama Hukum Progresif


Primaironline.com - Dalam bentang akhir dan awal tahun lalu, setidaknya tercatat dua tokoh yang berperan besar dalam penegakan hukum dan keadilan, telah berpulang meninggalkan kita. Yang pertama adalah KH Abdurrahman Wahid atau Gus Dur dan yang kedua adalah Prof. Satjipto Rahardjo, yang sering dipanggil Prof Tjip.

Semasa hidupnya, Gus Dur selalu istiqomah (konsisten) dalam membela kaum lemah dan minoritas serta memperjuangkan keadilan sosial (Andree Feillard; 1999). Demikian juga Prof Tjip, yang dengan latar akademis dan kepakarannya terus berjuang menegakkan hukum yang tujuan utamanya adalah keadilan.

Prof Tjip menyebutnya sebagai hukum progresif. Menurutnya, hukum tidak boleh menjadi tawanan sistem dan undang-undang. Keadilan dan kebahagiaan rakyat ada di atas hukum.

Walaupun tidak mengenal mereka secara langsung, saya bermaksud memberikan penghargaan dan penghormatan atas kontribusi tindakan dan pemikiran almarhum berdua bagi penegakan keadilan dan hak asasi manusia.

Untuk itu saya mencoba memahami dan berusaha untuk turut memperjuangkan pemikiran dan teladan mereka dalam menempatkan dan melaksanakan hukum yang pada akhirnya bermanfaat bagi terwujudnya keadilan.

Secara sederhana saya menyebutnya sebagai hukum untuk keadilan, sebagai antitesa atas pandangan hukum normatif yang konvensional yang menempatkan hukum untuk hukum.

Kabar baiknya, pandangan hukum progresif itu juga telah diintrodusir dan dilaksanakan oleh Prof. Mahfud MD dan lembaga yang dipimpinnya, yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK).

Dalam beberapa kesempatan, Prof. Mahfud MD mengatakan bahwa MK tidak menegakkan hukum, tetapi menegakkan keadilan yang merupakan perpaduan antara akal sehat (common sense) dengan UU. Hanya dengan pandangan seperti itulah penegakan hukum akan memberikan keadilan pada masyarakat (keadilan substantif). Dan karenanya, hukum bisa dilanggar bila menutup jalan bagi tegaknya keadilan.

Hukum legal-formal
Saya menganggap bahwa bila pandangan hukum progresif dilaksanakan oleh lembaga penegak hukum, baik itu polisi, hakim maupun jaksa, karut marut dunia penegakan hukum di Indonesia akan bisa diatasi. Pemberantasan korupsi dan penegakan HAM yang kini sedang dijalankan oleh Pemerintah SBY akan sulit berhasil bila ditangani dengan pendekatan penegakan hukum yang formalis dan legalistis.

Dalam perseteruan antara KPK dan Kepolisian beberapa waktu yang lalu, yang berujung pada penahanan Bibit Samad Rianto dan Chandra Hamzah, kelihatan sekali bagaimana pasal-pasal diotak-atik oleh penyidik supaya Bibit dan Chandra bisa ditahan.

Tapi sebaliknya untuk kasus Anggodo Widjojo yang diduga menyuap pimpinan KPK, perundang-undangan ditelan mentah-mentah oleh penyidik kepolisian, sehingga mereka menyimpulkan tidak ada bukti yang kuat untuk menahan Anggodo.

Cara kerja pihak kepolisian yang sangat legal-formal dan konvensional ini terbukti gagal melahirkan keadilan publik dan menyelesaikan masalah.

Demikian juga di bidang hak asasi manusia (HAM). Pandangan hukum legal-formal dan konvensional terbukti gagal digunakan untuk menyelesaikan berbagai kasus pelanggaran berat HAM di Indonesia. Penerapan hukum yang hanya didasarkan pada apa yang tertulis dalam undang-undang menjadikan Indonesia tidak bisa melangkah maju, karena pelanggaran berat HAM di masa lalu tak memungkinkan untuk disentuh.

Kalau kita tengok ke belakang, tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa salah satu penyebab utama dibebaskannya semua terdakwa pada Pengadilan HAM untuk kasus Timor Timur, Tanjung Priok dan Abepura adalah karena para hakim menerapkan pasal-pasal UU Pengadilan HAM secara kaku. Padahal, undang-undang tersebut memiliki banyak sekali kelemahan mendasar.

Hal yang sama dilakukan oleh Jaksa Agung Hendarman Supandji dan jajarannya yang sampai hari ini tidak mau melakukan penyidikan berkas-berkas penyelidikan untuk sedikitnya tujuh kasus dugaan pelanggaran berat HAM yang telah dilakukan oleh Komnas HAM.

Dalam banyak sekali kesempatan audiensi dengan komunitas korban, Kejaksaan Agung selalu mengatakan bahwa mereka belum bisa melakukan tindak lanjut (penyidikan) atas tujuh berkas kasus tersebut, karena belum ada Pengadilan HAM ad hoc dan alasan-alasan teknis prosedural lain yang menurut kami dibuat-buat (artifisial).

Bahkan, untuk kasus Penghilangan Paksa Aktivis tahun 1997-1998 yang sudah direkomendasikan oleh DPR agar Presiden mendirikan Pengadilan HAM ad hoc, Jaksa Agung masih mengeluarkan alasan baru: menunggu sikap Presiden.

Dari contoh-contoh di atas kelihatan sekali betapa para penegak hukum memandang hukum sebagai kitab suci yang kaku yang terlepas dari kondisi sosial dan politik. Padahal hukum dan undang-undang dibuat melalui sebuah proses politik pada konteks tertentu, yang sangat mungkin pada konteks dan jaman tertentu tidak sesuai lagi.

Pendekatan seperti inilah yang menyebabkan mandeknya berbagai proses hukum untuk kasus pelanggaran berat HAM, sehingga proses hukum berseberangan dengan akal sehat (common sense).

Walaupun sangat mungkin, para jaksa dan hakim mengambil sikap ini karena mereka memang tidak hendak mewujudkan keadilan, sebagaimana otoritas politik yang membawahi mereka memberikan arahan.

Hal ini sangat berseberangan dengan hukum progresif yang dikembangkan oleh Prof Tjip dan dilaksanakan oleh Mahfud MD, dimana hukum harus diperuntukkan untuk tujuan keadilan. Dan kalau hukum tidak memungkinkan terwujudnya keadilan, maka hukum bisa dilanggar.

Tantangan baru
Usaha menegakkan hukum dan keadilan di awal tahun 2010 ini nampaknya masih menghadapi tantangan sangat berat. Setelah dicederai oleh kasus perseteruan cicak dan buaya serta megaskandal Bank Century yang juga belum selesai, wajah hukum dan keadilan kini sedang ditampar lagi apa yang terjadi di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Wanita Pondok Bambu. Di LP ini narapidana kasus penyuapan dan narkotika seperti Artalyta Suryani (Ayin) dan Limarita (Aling) menikmati privilege, berupa berbagai fasilitas kenyamanan mewah seperti ruang karaoke, springbed, perlengkapan kecantikan pribadi, TV layar datar dan sebagainya.

Fakta yang ditemukan saat Satuan Tugas Pemberantasan Mafia Hukum bentukan Presiden SBY melakukan inspeksi mendadak itu menjadi bukti nyata betapa hukum bisa dibeli dan adanya diskriminasi terhadap para narapidana. Padahal, semua orang harus mendapatkan hak dan perlakuan yang sama di depan hukum.

Dalam UU Nomor 12 Tahun 1995 tentang Pemasyarakatan, juga secara tegas disebutkan bahwa sistem pembinaan pemasyarakatan dilaksanakan berdasarkan asas (b) persamaan perlakuan dan pelayanan.

Dalam situasi inilah, yang bisa dimulai pada hari ke-100 masa pemerintahannya yang kedua, Pemerintahan SBY dituntut untuk menunjukkan bahwa Pemerintahan SBY jilid dua ini merupakan pemerintahan koreksi atas pemerintahan sebelumnya. Tiga pilar program yang dideklarasikan pada pidato pelantikannya di Gedung DPR/MPR RI yang meliputi peningkatan kesejahteraan rakyat (prosperity), penguatan demokrasi (democracy), dan penegakan keadilan (justice) ini tidak mungkin tercapai bila ia masih dan hanya berkutat pada politik pencitraan.

Sudah waktunya Pemerintah SBY melakukan pergantian (shift) ke politik substantif, ketika prosperity, democracy dan justice tidak hanya diksi-diksi tak bermakna. Mereka harus diejawantahkan menjadi kenyataan yang bisa dilihat, dirasakan dan dinikmati seluruh rakyat Indonesia.

Demikian juga dalam hal penegakan keadilan. Sudah datang waktunya bagi mereka yang selama ini terpuruk oleh diskriminasi, stigmatisasi, marjinalisasi dan pemiskinan akibat peristiwa pelanggaran HAM di masa lalu untuk turut bisa menikmati buah pembangunan di republik tercinta ini.

Mugiyanto, Ketua Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia (IKOHI)

Sumber: http://www.primaironline.com/interaktif/detail.php?catid=Opini&artid=haluan-bernama-hukum-progresif

Monday, January 11, 2010

Ratifying Convention on Disappearances



Ratifying Convention on Disappearances
Mugiyanto , Jakarta | Mon, 01/11/2010 9:32 AM | Opinion

At the end of its 2004-2009 term, the House of Representatives (DPR) left an exemplary legacy in the field of human rights. On Sept. 28, 2009, it surprisingly issued a set of comprehensive recommendations to the government on the disappearances of pro-democracy activists in 1997-1998.

The recommendations consist of four points that cover the areas of justice, truth, reparations and a guarantee of non-repetition, in which they reflect the victims’ rights.

Of the four recommendations, two are addressed directly to the President, urging the President to establish an ad hoc human rights court and to search for the 13 people still missing.

The other two are addressed to the government to provide compensation and rehabilitation to the victims, and to ratify the Convention on Enforced Disappearances for the purpose of preventing cases of enforced disappearances happening again in the future.

The four recommendations were issued by the House through its plenary session as a result of the work of the parliamentary special committee on the report by the National Human Rights Commission on the disappearance cases in 1997-1998.
The House was mandated by Article 43 of the 2000 law on the Human Rights Court. The committee had been working on it for two years, since it was established in February 2008.

This article, however, wants to highlight the recommendation to the government to ratify the Convention on Enforced Disappearance, which indicates Indonesia’s intention to comply with the development of the international human rights treaty.
Civil society organizations have repeatedly urged the government to ratify the Convention on Enforced Disappearances.

Back in March 2007, three months after the adoption of the convention by the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the ratification of the convention was promised by the then justice and human rights minister Hamid Awaluddin in a high-level speech during the first sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland.

Once it ratifies the convention, Indonesia is legally bound to comply with its provisions. One of the important forms of compliance is the inclusion of the act of disappearance as a crime in domestic legislation (currently, it falls under abduction, kidnapping, deprivation of liberty). Others are measures on the obligation of the state to hold the perpetrators accountable and take preventative measures.

As stipulated in Article 39 of the convention, it will come into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit of the twentieth ratification with the secretary-general of the United Nations.

As of today, the convention has been signed by 81 governments and ratified by 18 states. Of those 18 ratifying states, eight states are from Latin America, four states from Europe, four states from Africa and only two states from Asia. The two Asian states that have ratified the convention are Japan and Kazakhstan.
The composition of the ratifying states has not yet reflected the purpose of the convention, which is to put an end of the global phenomenon of disappearances. The fact that there are eight Latin American states and only two Asian states seem to imply that the convention is more relevant to Latin American states. The fact, however, is that it is needed more by Asian countries as disappearances are still ongoing phenomena in the region.

The report of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in the last three years indicated that Asian regions submitted the highest number of cases of enforced disappearances as compared to other regions. Of the countries in the region, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iraq, India, China, and the Philippines are those among the contributors.

It is because of this situation that an organization like the Asian Federations against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) in cooperation with the Latin American Federation of Association of Families of Disappeared Detainees (FEDEFAM) has been conducting a series of lobbying and campaign activities in Indonesia and other countries in the region in order that more Asian states ratify the convention.
Worth mentioning here is that Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Thailand, the Philippines and Nepal are supportive and in the process of studying eventual ratification of the convention.

In its final report entitled Ad Memoriam Per Spem which means “from Memory to Hope” released in 2008, the joint Commission for Truth and Friendship (CTF) of Timor-Leste and Indonesia produced one specific recommendation that related to disappearances.
The recommendation is for both governments to establish the Commission on Disappeared Persons. The said commission is tasked to locate the missing persons who disappeared in Timor-Leste during the conflict. Now that both governments are preparing to follow up on the said recommendation, immediate ratification of the convention will provide several benefits, some of them are:

First, the criticism by the international community that the Commission for Truth and Friendship is denying justice and accountability will be less profound than before. This is because it will base its recommendations on the international treaty directly related to the matter.

Second, the said Commission on Disappeared Persons, or whatever name both governments will give to the new follow-up institution, will fulfill and be compatible with international standards.

This will prevent the possibility of receiving international criticism later for not complying with existing standards and according to the principles of organizations working on the issues of disappearances and missing persons.

Third, being the state parties to the convention, both governments will obtain technical assistance from others. This includes, among others, in searching for, locating and releasing disappeared persons and, in the event of death, in exhuming and identifying them and returning their remains (Article 15 of the convention).

Fourth, ratifying the convention means laying the foundations for the ongoing institutional reforms that both governments are doing to prevent the same crimes happening again in the future.


The writer is the chairman of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and Indonesian Association of Families of the Disappeared (IKOHI).

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/11/ratifying-convention-disappearances.html