In 1998, Soeharto resigned due to widespread protestsdemanding the restoration of democracy in Indonesia. Afterthree decades of oppressive military rule, during the NewOrder regime, democracy was restored to the country. As withother countries emerging from authoritarian regimes, such as thePhilippines, the restoration of democracy in Indonesia followedyears of developing normative and legal frameworks to protecthuman rights. The absolute freedom from torture is one of thefundamental rights Indonesia agreed to protect.
In the same year, 1998, the government signed the Conventionagainst Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatmentor Punishment (CAT). In the following years, numerous domesticlaws on human rights were introduced. Some of these includedLaw 39/1999 Concerning Human Rights and Law 26/2000Establishing the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court. The 1945Constitution (in 2000) was amended to incorporate fundamentalrights as a constitutional guarantee. With the restoration ofdemocracy, an enormous contribution was made to the protectionof human rights.
However, while in principle the people of Indonesia agree thatno one should be tortured, there is not complete agreement, eitherin the government or in the public that torture must stop. Thegovernment of Indonesia still resists enacting a specific domesticlaw that criminalizes torture, one that ensures an effective remedyfor the violation of these rights, in conformity with the CAT.Soeharto’s authoritarian regime may have ended, and democracyrestored; however, his legacy on the use of torture as a tool ofoppression continues in Indonesian society today.
With all the laws enacted after the collapse of Soeharto’sregime, torture victims and their families were led to believethat there was hope of obtaining justice. For example, the highlycontroversial investigations, prosecutions and trials of pasthuman rights violations, as discussed in the article by Md. DaudBerueh and the interview with Mugiyanto, have not resulted inthe punishment of the perpetrators of gross violations underthese human rights laws. Thus, even in cases involving grosshuman rights violations there have been no adequate solutions.Torture victims and their families, disappeared victims and theirfamilies, and victims of widespread extrajudicial executions andtheir families, have not obtained justice.
Meanwhile, in the absence of a specific law on torture inIndonesia, torture victims and their families utilize the PenalCode and the Criminal Procedure Code. Knowing full well thateven in gross violations of human rights, to obtain a convictionis an uphill battle, torture victims and their families neverthelesspursue many avenues to test the efficacy of Indonesia’s legalsystem. They were demanding protection of their absolute rightto freedom from torture, as promised by the reformasi.
In an article by Answer Styannes and Era Purnama Sari theyexamined torture cases that were investigated, prosecuted anddecided by the courts. In these cases, the torture victims utilizedthe Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to obtain redress.The seven cases examined demonstrate the sheer absence of anysort of solutions in practice. At the conclusion of trials, there arecases where policemen and soldiers who tortured victims to deathin their custody were given lenient sentences of only one year.And even when the court ordered compensation and rehabilitationfor torture victims, as in the case of Syamsul Arifin, they arenot implemented. Many families of torture victims, demandingcompensation for the death of their loved ones including burialexpenses, were denied by the court because they were not ableto produce receipts of their expenses.
In the article by Styannes and Sari it was clear that even theconcept of restitution, rehabilitation and compensation hardlyexists in Indonesia’s legal system as it is practiced. They existonly in theory and on paper. Mugiyanto, one of the 13 activistsforcibly disappeared and tortured in a secret underground militarydetention in 1998 stated: the development of a normative andlegal framework on the prohibition and prevention of torture inIndonesia has become meaningless. An effective solution, whenit was needed most, could not be afforded.
However, with the investigation, prosecution and trial of severalState officials who were responsible for torture over the past fewyears, a façade arises that gives the appearance that torturevictims may obtain justice. One cannot say categorically that thegovernment has not done anything to support torture victims andtheir families. But when one examines the struggle of victims inpursuing redress in court, it is clear that solutions exist on paper,not in practice. The compensation obtained by some victims, ifwe can call that a victory of sorts, is dwarfed by the enormity andthe scale of a systematic and widespread practice of torture thatcontinues in Indonesian society.
After 15 years of democracy in Indonesia, the practice andthe need to torture continues as a deep flaw in the make-up ofthe police, the prosecution and the judiciary. The practice is socommon. Persons or groups like Komnas HAM and local NGOs,who investigate torture cases find it unbelievable that in HongKong and other parts of the world torture is no longer used asa method of investigation. The state of democracy in a country,and democratic space for its people, as in Indonesia, will bemeasured and judged by how the government together with thepeople absolutely prohibit torture.
In the summary of 40 cases of torture in Indonesia, it is clearlyshown that people still struggle to emerge from the legacies of theauthoritarian past of their government. The practice of torture inSoeharto’s era, remains part of the security apparatus and is anacceptable method of investigation and social control.
This report is dedicated to all torture victims in the world,especially in Indonesia. This report does not have the perfectsolution; however, we hope it can contribute to the ongoingdiscourse in support of the struggle of victims and their families,leading to a critical understanding of the practice of torture inIndonesia. This report hopes to strip away the facade of justice andreveal it for what it is, in order to support the absolute prohibitionof torture in Indonesia.
This report was prepared by Answer Styannes; layout designand edited by Danilo Reyes, with the assistance of John StewartSloan and Sr. Marya Zaborowski in copy-editing.
Ms Styannes is grateful for the support of local activists andhuman rights NGOs whom she has worked with in the preparationof this report. She wishes to thank the Padang Legal Aid Institute(LBH Padang) and the Commission for the Disappeared andVictims of Violence (KontraS). These are organisations that havebeen very supportive, giving invaluable information and insightsin the writing of this report.
Also we thank the organisations below for their contributions:
Bersatu untuk Kebenaran (BUK)
Center for Democracy and Civil Society Studies in Bima
Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat)
Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta)
Initiative for the Development of People’s Advocacy (PIAR)
Institute for the Development of Legal and Human RightsStudy (LPSHAM)
Institute of Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM)
Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation (YLBHI)
Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation of the EvangelicalChristian Church in Papua (JPIC GKI)
LBH Banda Aceh
LBH Medan
LBH Padang
LBH Jakarta
LBH Lampung
PBHI Jakarta
SKPKC Fransiskan Papua
