Indonesia is Ready and Should Ratify the ICC

Indonesia is ready and should ratify the ICC

Mugiyanto , Jakarta | Fri, 04/10/2009 1:39 PM | Opinion

Prof. Hikmahanto Juwana wrote an interesting article on April 2, on whether Indonesia should ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The professor of law's position is clear, he is against the ratification.

The article is interesting, as Indonesia is now in the process of ratifying the ICC, and due to the controversy on the issuing by the ICC of an arrest warrant against Sudan President Omar al Bahsir.

In an article, "Should RI ratify ICC Statute?" Prof. Juwana argues that Indonesia should not ratify the Rome Statute. First of all, Prof. Juwana said Indonesia did not need to ratify the ICC because the country had promulgated the Human Rights Court Law (Law No. 26/2000), which had been able to bring to court three human rights abuse cases (the cases of Timor Timur 1999, Tanjung Priok 1984 and Abepura 2001).

He pointed out the reforms within the Indonesian Military (TNI), that the TNI was no longer involved in politics and made reports about respecting human rights.

Prof. Juwana proposed three conditions in order for Indonesia to ratify the Rome Statute; the need of the international community to treat all those who commit international crimes the same; that countries like the United States should not pursue impunity for their soldiers who commit international crimes; and that Non-Surrender Agreements (NSA) should not be imposed by other countries.

There is nothing wrong with these prerequisites. They are exactly the reasons why the ICC was established as a permanent Court, to complement existing ad hoc international courts such as the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Tokyo Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and the ICTR) which are criticized more as political Courts.

What is more important to note, however, is that in order to make the ICC treat all countries equally, and not be politicized nor target only less developed or powerful states, Indonesia, as well as the states he specifically mentioned, the United States and Israel, should ratify the ICC.

Not ratifying the ICC with the argument that other big countries alleged to have committed international crimes have not ratified the ICC either, is like looking for justification to committing similar crimes.

Indonesia, as one of the world's largest democracies, is right in leading the move toward getting big and powerful countries onboard the international justice regime.

With the arguments above, this writer is convinced Indonesia is ready and should ratify the ICC without delay.

The ratification of the ICC by Indonesia will not merely improve its image with respect to human rights and provide only a symbolic significance, as Prof. Juwana said.

Much more than that, the ratification of the ICC will make sure that Indonesian citizens are protected from any possible acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

It will also make Indonesia able to prevent such crimes happening in the future, as well as to main-tain peace in the region and in the world. Moreover, it will give Indone-sia equal footing with other countries that committed themselves earlier to the order of international justice.

It is not only that the ratification of the ICC has been mandated by Presidential Decree No. 20, 2004 in the National Plan for Action on Human Rights (RANHAM).

The Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for the International Criminal Court (The Coalition), that has been working in parallel with the government on the process of ratifying the ICC could only list the advantages of the ratification and disadvantages of not ratifying the ICC.

Some of the principle advantages of the ratification are that it will give protection to citizens, including the Indonesian peace keeping force; it will enable Indonesia to play a bigger role in the international justice system; accelerate legal reform; improve human rights protection and many other benefits (Academic Paper of the Coalition, 2008).

However, some substantive issues are still "burning", and, accordingly, still need further discussion to resolve, such as the following:

First, some still think the ICC will disrupt national sovereignty. Based on the preamble of the Rome Statute, the ICC is complementary to national judiciary (the complementary principle). Article 17 (1) of the Rome Statute on the inadmissibility of the case guarantees this principle.

It is mentioned there that the ICC cannot intervene in criminal cases in national courts when a state is performing an investigation or prosecution, and if the case has been settled by a proper and fair court.

Based on this provision, the ICC is actually aimed at making the national criminal judiciary of a state run more effectively.

Thereby, the ICC will neither intervene in nor reduce the sovereignty of the legal system of Indonesia. National legal mechanisms remain the main avenue to prosecute crime.

Second, on the principle of nonretroactivity, some still think that alleged perpetrators of crimes which happened before the ICC comes into force will be brought before the court.

Article 24 of the Rome Statute states that nobody will be held responsible in term of penal law for things done before the Statute is put into effect. This provision shows that the Statute of Rome does not prevail retroactively, and that it holds dear the principle of legality as a cardinal principle in criminal law.

The writer is chairman of the Association of Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (Ikohi)

The article was published by the Jakarta Post, April 10, 2009 (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/04/10/indonesia-ready-and-should-ratify-icc.html)

Oral Statement, General Segment, 10th Sessions of UN Human Rights Council, Geneva

On Wednesday, March 4, 2009, Mugiyanto on his personal capacity was assigned to make an intervention representing civil society, at the General Segment of the 10th Sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement he made was on disappearances in Asia, and the importance of the ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 2006.

Below is the statement, which can also be seen at the website of the UN Human Rights Council at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/


10th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (2-27 March 2009)
General Segment

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

Oral Statement delivered by a civil society representative, Mr. Mugiyanto


Your Excellency Mr President, Distinguished Delegates and NGO colleagues,

First, let me thank you Mr President for allowing me to speak before this Council as a human rights defender and add my perspective to your work.

My name is Mugiyanto. I have been working for the victims of enforced disappearances in Indonesia (1) for the last 11 years. Since 2003, I have been working as the chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)(2) , based in the Philippines. My activities as a human rights defender are based on my own experience as a victim of enforced disappearance 11 years ago – I was fortunate enough to surface again. Because of my work as a student activist, in March 1998, I was held incommunicado, interrogated and tortured.

Mr President,

I would like to take this opportunity to call for your sincere support for the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, which was adopted by this Human Rights Council at its first session in June 2006. It should be an urgent task for this Council to work towards the effective implementation of the Convention as an instrument for protecting people from enforced disappearances, revealing the truth, delivering justice and providing reparation for the victims and their relatives.

However, we regret that to date, the Convention has been ratified by only nine states, and unfortunately, none of them is from my region. I would like to express our appreciation to Albania, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, France, Honduras, Mexico, Senegal and Kazakhstan for already ratifying the Convention.

The General Assembly adopted the Convention on December 20, 2006, “by consensus”, and this means that all member states of the United Nations are committed to the objectives and the spirit of the Convention and to give due regard to the Convention as one of the core human rights treaties. I appreciate that my country has pledged to sign and ratify (3) the Convention; however it has not lived up to this pledge yet.


Mr. President,

As the latest report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) indicates, enforced disappearances are still widely committed in many states with over 40,000 outstanding cases, of which 29,000 cases in Asia (4) . It is in this context that human rights defenders again call on the Human Rights Council to urge its members and other states to speed up the process of signing and ratifying the Convention.

The importance and relevance of the Convention goes beyond the human rights violations that occur when someone is disappeared. The Convention is also an important tool to protect human rights defenders working on the issue of disappearances since they themselves have been the target of harassment, murder and disappearance as well.

From the Asian region, we have a case of a very committed human rights lawyer from South East Asia (5) who disappeared in March 2004 for his activity in defending the victims of human rights violations. We also had another case of an internationally well-known lawyer and human rights defender (6) who died of poisoning on the plane in September 2004. In the same year, a 15-year old girl was kidnapped by the members of the army force (7). Recently in January, five tribesmen (8) who had been working to protect the rights of communities and their ancestral domain from exploitative mining, have been disappeared. In brief, in all other regions of the world, many human rights defenders have also been subject to disappearances without any accountability.

The entry into force of the Convention has been so long awaited by thousands of mothers, fathers, wives and husbands, grandparents and all family members of the victims. The crime of enforced disappearances has caused severe sufferings not only to the direct victims themselves, but also to the relatives and the friends of the disappeared. The eternal waiting for his or her return and the constant uncertainty about the fate and whereabouts of the loved ones can amount to torture.

On behalf of all the victims of disappearances and their families, I strongly urge the member states of the United Nations, especially the members of this Council to ratify the Convention without any delay.

I thank you, Mr. President.

Notes:
1 Indonesian Association of Families of the Disappeared (IKOHI), http://www.ikohi.blogspot.com
2 http://www.afad-online.org
3 During the High Level Segment of the 4th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Indonesian government has announced its will to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
4 The precise figure according to the WGEID report is that disappearances reported to happen in 79 states with 42,393 outstanding cases. 16,526 cases reported happened in Iraq and 12,297 cases in Sri Lanka.
5 Mr. Somchai Neelaphaijit from Thailand was disappeared on 12 March 2004. For further information: http://www.afad-online.org/voice/aug_07/sarosi.htm
6 Mr. Munir Said bin Thalib from Indonesia was poisoned in the plane from Jakarta to Amsterdam in September 2004. For further information: http://www.kontras.org; “Regional NGOs question latest court decision on Munir’s death”,http://www.forum-asia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2054&Itemid=32
7 Ms. Maina Sunuwar was only 15 years old when on 17 February 2004 she was taken from her home by members of the Nepal Army. For further information: http://www.advocacyforum.org
8 Five Mamanwa indigenous men have been missing since 29 January 2009 in Mindanao, the Philippines. They disappeared on the day when they built barricade to block roads to their communities, in order to stop mining. For further information: http://www.lrcksk.org

Nasib Orang-orang Hilang di Parlemen

Nasib Orang-Orang Hilang di Parlemen
[Mugiyanto]

Pada Oktober tahun lalu, dahaga masyarakat akan penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia sedikit mendapatkan harapan ketika Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat menghidupkan kembali Panitia Khusus DPR untuk kasus penculikan para aktivis tahun 1997-1998 (Pansus Orang Hilang). Pansus yang sebenarnya sudah terbentuk sejak Februari 2007 itu merencanakan untuk melanjutkan kerja-kerjanya yang berhenti dengan meminta keterangan ke sejumlah pihak.

Di antara pihak-pihak yang hendak diperiksa untuk dimintai keterangannya adalah pemerintah, korban, keluarga korban, Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat pendamping dan pihak-pihak yang diduga terlibat. Pemeriksaan atas pihak terakhir inilah yang kemudian menimbulkan polemik dan kontroversi. Mereka yang dimaksud adalah Wiranto, Prabowo Subianto, Sutiyoso dan Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Beberapa kalangan menilai rencana pansus ini lebih merupakan sebuah langkah politik daripada sebuah upaya untuk menegakkan hak asasi manusia. Bahkan ada juga pihak yang mencurigai pansus sebagai manuver Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP) untuk menjegal rival-rivalnya dalam pemilihan umum nanti dengan menyabet posisi ketua pansus. Namun bagi keluarga korban, perdebatan soal motivasi dan kepentingan politik di balik rencana kerja pansus bukanlah hal yang penting, selama pekerjaan dia bisa berujung pada ditemukannya kejelasan mengenai nasib dan keberadaan orang-orang yang dihilangkan.

Menanggapi polemik dan kontroversi tersebut, ketua pansus bergeming. Pansus tetap melakukan pemeriksaan yang dimulai dengan dengar pendapat dengan beberapa korban, keluarga korban dan LSM pendamping. Kepada beberapa orang yang diduga terlibat, surat pemanggilan pemeriksaan pun sudah dilayangkan November lalu.

Sampai akhir tahun 2008, ketika DPR memasuki masa reses (kunjungan ke daerah-daerah), tak ada lagi kabar berita tentang pansus itu. Dalam kesempatan pemeriksaan korban, keluarga korban dan pendamping, ketua pansus mengatakan, pansus akan menyelesaikan penanganan kasus orang hilang ini sebelum masa kerjanya selesai. Ini berarti, sebelum September 2009, Pansus diasumsikan telah memberikan rekomendasinya kepada presiden untuk membentuk Pengadilan HAM Ad Hoc.

Tanggungjawab Negara
Masa persidangan III DPR tahun 2009 sudah dimulai sejak 19 Januari dan secara keseluruhan, sampai dengan 30 September tahun ini, DPR hanya memiliki 126 hari kerja. Walaupun singkat, waktu tersebut dipastikan cukup karena pansus tidak perlu melakukan penyelidikan, hanya tinggal meminta keterangan beberapa pihak sebelum akhirnya merekomendasikan presiden untuk membentuk pengadilan HAM Ad Hoc. Namun demikian, bila janji ketua pansus tidak sekadar diucapkan untuk dilanggar, maka mustinya sekaranglah saatnya pansus mulai bekerja lagi.

Keterbatasan waktu adalah satu hal, tetapi etika moral, sosial dan politik serta tanggung jawab konstitusional negara untuk segera memberikan keadilan pada warganya adalah hal yang jauh lebih substansial. Seorang bangsawan dan negarawan Inggris, William Gladstone pernah mengatakan justice delayed is justice denied, dalam bahasa Indoneia bermakna; keadilan yang tak segera diberikan sama saja dengan pengingkaran atas keadilan itu sendiri. Di sanalah letak kewajiban negara, dimana DPR adalah salah satu unsur untuk segera menangani kasus penghilangan paksa (orang hilang) ini.

Agenda Pemilu dan Hak Asasi Manusia
Agenda nasional pemilu 2009 bukanlah satu-satunya agenda nasional yang karenanya agenda lain bisa dikesampingkan atau ditunda pemenuhannya. Sebagaimana hak-hak warga negara atas pangan, papan, pekerjaan, kesehatan, pendidikan, rasa aman dan sebagainya, hak warga negara atas perlindungan hak asasi manusia dan keadilan juga harus dipenuhi oleh pemerintah dan negara.

Lebih dari itu, pemenuhan hak-hak warga masyarakat tersebut justru akan memberi isi, makna dan bahkan akan menentukan kualitas dan hasil pemilu yang akan datang. Oleh karena itu, usulan agar Pansus Orang Hilang menyerahkan penanganan kasus tersebut pada DPR hasil Pemilu 2009 nanti adalah usulan tidak bertanggung jawab.

Agenda pemilu dan hak asasi manusia menjadi semakin kental relevansi dan keterkaitannya satu sama lain karena pemerintah dan DPR hasil pemilu 2009 masih harus menyelesaikan salah satu tanggung jawab besar masa transisi yaitu penanganan berbagai kasus-kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia masa lalu dan pemenuhan hak-hak para korban.

Keengganan dan kelambatan pemerintah sebelumnya dalam menangani pelanggaran hak asasi manusia masa lalu menjadikan tanggung jawab ini terus terbebankan kepada pemerintah selanjutnya. Namun tanggung jawab ini harus diambil, karena ia menjadi prasyarat keberhasilan masa transisi menuju demokrasi dan kemajuan ekonomi (Nelson Mandela, Transitional Justice; How Emerging Democracies Recon with Former Regimes, 1995).

Hak Asasi Manusia dan Pansus yang Hilang
Kalau kita mengamati secara serius masa hiruk-pikuk kampanye para calon legislatif (caleg) dan calon presiden/wakil presiden selama beberapa bulan terakhir, isu hak asasi manusia nyaris tidak pernah terdengar. Sangat sedikit, atau bahkan tidak ada sama sekali yang secara jelas berbicara tentang apa yang akan mereka lakukan terhadap berbagai kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang ada di Indonesia.

Dari perkembangan dan fenomena yang muncul akhir-akhir ini, kecenderungan yang muncul di kalangan para kandidat yang mencalonkan diri adalah membungkus rapat-rapat keborokan-keborokan mereka di bidang hak asasi manusia (political wrapping) dengan membangun pencitraan politik yang populis (popular political imaging) pada masyarakat. Sehingga kesan yang muncul adalah bahwa kita tidak memiliki masalah dengan hak asasi manusia atau hak asasi manusia tidaklah penting.

Ribuan korban konflik di Aceh dan Papua serta ribuan yang lain dari berbagai kasus yang terjadi sejak tahun 1965 hingga turunnya Orde Baru seperti menjadi angka-angka mati yang tak berarti. Padahal setiap Kamis sore, mereka masih selalu menagih janji keadilan pemerintah di depan istana presiden.

Iklan-iklan politik seperti ini tidak hanya membodohi dan membohongi rakyat, tetapi juga berbahaya bagi bangsa ke depan karena nilai yang dibangun berseberangan dengan arus besar bangsa-bangsa di dunia yang sedang berjuang untuk menghapuskan impunitas dan menegakkan hak asasi manusia.

Akan lebih bertanggung jawab dan visioner bila para calon presiden dan wakil presiden beserta calon legislatif yang sedang berkampanye juga mengintegrasikan hak asasi manusia sebagai bagian integral dari program-program yang mereka tawarkan bila mereka terpilih.

Bagi Pansus Orang Hilang DPR, kinilah saatnya untuk membuktikan bahwa pansus dibentuk dengan tujuan untuk membuka jalan penyelesaian kasus orang hilang sebagaimana direkomendasikan oleh Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia atau Komnas HAM pada November 2006. Pekerjaan pansus ini juga bisa dijadikan sebagai usaha untuk memperbaiki citra DPR yang sampai saat ini sedang berada di titik nadir yang rendah karena berbagai skandal korupsi. Bagi masyarakat, pansus juga bisa dijadikan ukuran kinerja para anggota DPR saat ini, apakah mereka masih layak untuk dipilih kembali?

Mugiyanto, ketua IKOHI dan Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)

Sumber: Media Bersama (http://www.mediabersama.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2181:nasib-orang-orang-hilang-di-parlemen&catid=932:pandangan&Itemid=110)
Diterbitkan lagi oleh Vivanews.com di http://ureport.vivanews.com/news/read/30382-nasib_orang_hilang_di_parlemen