It was a bloody event that Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, then a human rights activist and University of Indonesia law student working part-time at the Legal Aid Institute (LBH), can never forget. Even today, as Chairman of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), he can still recall the scent of death that day.

"There were clearly serious human rights violations in the Tanjung Priok case," said Abdul Hakim. With ease, Abdul Hakim named L.B. Moerdani [former defense and security minister, simultaneously Indonesian Armed Forces commander] and Try Sutrisno [former commander of the Jakarta Military Command] as the officials who should be made "accountable" for the tragedy that killed tens of demonstrators. [Abdul Qadir Djaelani, one of the men indicted in the Tanjung Priok case told Tempo there were as many as 300 people killed.]

But Abdul Hakim feels let down. The ad hoc human rights tribunal in Jakarta two weeks ago acquitted Special Forces (Kopassus) Commander Maj. Gen.

Sriyanto of any responsibility. Yet Sriyanto led the platoon of soldiers which shot at the protesters in Tanjung Priok. Then a captain, he became Chief of the North Jakarta Military District Operations. The tribunal also acquitted Maj. Gen. (ret) Pranowo, who was then POM commander in Jakarta, even though according to Abdul Hakim, "strong evidence points to the use of torture by POM members."

In order to get the views of Abdul Hakim, currently Chairman of Komnas HAM, on the ad hoc tribunals and other human rights cases in Indonesia, Tempo reporter Setiyardi interviewed him two weeks ago. In a two-hour long interview, Abdul Hakim answered all questions "very slowly and carefully." Excerpts:

The panel of judges at the human rights tribunal acquitted the generals involved in the Tanjung Priok case. What are your thoughts on this?

Major-Generals Pranowo and Sriyanto were indeed acquitted. One of the judges' considerations was that peaceful settlement (islah) had been established between the perpetrators and the victims of the Tanjung Priok case. But this is not correct. According to national laws, an islah does not supersede a criminal indictment. I have asked the prosecutor about an appeal. We are now waiting because they have submitted an appeal.

Can't an islah be seen as a legal consideration?

It can be seen as a consideration towards reducing a sentence. But it can never be used to escape a legal sentencing. That's why, when a number of witnesses withdrew their testimonies because of the islah, that is totally wrong. The withdrawal of those testimonies must be set aside by the judges.

The testimonies must still be used in court. The judges should examine further why the victims withdrew their testimonies. Are they being tortured, pressured or given money at all?

Are you disappointed with the court's verdict?

I cannot answer without revealing my personal feelings. Certainly, the formation of this ad hoc human rights tribunal was agreed by Komnas HAM, the Attorney General's Office, the House of Representatives (DPR) and the president, with the understanding that serious human rights violations had been committed. Otherwise, there would not be such a tribunal.

Many people are very unhappy with the tribunal's decision?

Indeed, there are voices from the public which doubt the credibility of the legal proceedings on the Tanjung Priok case. This is understandable if public accountability is to be achieved. The DPR should address those doubts by evaluating the performance of the human rights tribunal. What should be assessed is whether the tribunal acted fairly, objectively and fulfilled all international standards. Were there weaknesses in the laws which formed the basis of the trial itself? Did the prosecutor and the judges abuse their authority?

Why didn't Komnas HAM conduct such an evaluation?

In accordance with the laws on Komnas HAM, we cannot interfere in cases that are being legally processed. Furthermore, the task of the DPR is to control the government and institutions of justice.

Does our human rights tribunal meet international standards?

After Komnas HAM, the file on the Tanjung Priok case languished for three years at the AGO. It was during that time that all kinds of maneuvers took place, like getting the islah. This should be examined, whether there was an element of intent. Why for instance, did it take a year and a half to appoint a special prosecutor after the AGO decided to bring the case to trial?

About standards, we refer to similar human rights tribunals, such as those on Rwanda and Yugoslavia. But there are significant differences. In Yugoslavia, it is easy to test the evidence. Serbian leaders who egged on their people by radio to hate other ethnic groups have already been tried.

The recordings of these announcements can become evidence of the existence of systematic planning. That's where we are weak, on our laws covering human rights justice, which still refers to the criminal code, whereas for serious human rights violation, we need a different set of laws. Thisshould be re-examined.

Why weren't L.B. Moerdani and Try Sutrisno indicted?

Where the Tanjung Priok case is concerned, Komnas HAM identified 33 people who were to be made accountable for their actions, including Benny Moerdani and Try Sutrisno. Later, the attorney general indicted 14 of them, excluding those two generals. Attorney General M.A. Rachman should explain to the public the reasons for his decision. We just want a fair trial.

Unfortunately, the process is not working well, because islah is being used as an excuse to acquit Pranowo and Sriyanto.

So how do you react to this?

After the attorney general announced the names of those indicted, we sent a letter to him, asking whether there would be other names aside from the selected 14. They replied there would be no other names. Komnas HAM could not explore any further, because we would be entering a technical area in which we could not interfere.

Tempo found a radiogram from Try Sutrisno, the Regional Military commander then, instructing the Kodim (district military command) to take action against the protesters. Isn't that evidence of his involvement?

That question should be addressed to the AGO. I cannot answer it.

People think Try Sutrisno and Benny Moerdani were involved. That is why Komnas HAM has stated those two generals must be made accountable for their actions.

In what form, will be up to the prosecutor. Komnas HAM cannot push the prosecution to indict the two generals. The Law on Komnas HAM emphasizes that Komnas Ham cannot be involved in examinations conducted by the prosecutor.

Try Sutrisno is a signatory to the islah agreement. Would that be evidence of guilt?

I don't know. Only his conscience can answer that.

Do you see an abuse of authority by the Prosecutor's Office?

There could be abuse of authority. The one who should question and investigate this is the DPR. They are the controlling institution. I think the incoming DPR will be a lot more critical towards this legal case.

Komnas HAM has no authority to pre-judge the prosecutor's office. The police can do this, even though they haven't done it so far because of a sense of 'mutual support' (laughing).

Is the quality of the ad hoc tribunal judges still below standard?

Our judges are inexperienced in handling human rights cases. It's a fact.

Besides, this tribunal is still very much influenced by politics. Right now, the TNI (Indonesian Military) still wields a lot influence over government affairs. Such influence is felt even inside the courtrooms, especially when the defendants are TNI officers.

Do you have proof of that?

The Kopassus commander, Maj. Gen. Sriyanto, for example, brought one platoon of uniformed Kopassus personnel each time he appeared in court.

They filled all the seats. That shouldn't be allowed because it creates a psychological pressure on the judges. Within the justice bureaucracy, which has lived long under authoritarianism, that influence is still very strong.

Our human rights justice system is still not independent. There is a psychological problem that remains very influential. We still have to fight for that independence.

On other human rights cases, why weren't there any TNI defendants in the East Timor case?

That is so illogical. In the East Timor case, it can be concluded that security personnel should be made accountable under the law. The East Timor case represents a human rights crime that has broad implications. So Komnas HAM recommended that even ABRI commander General Wiranto should also be made accountable. Strangely, why did the prosecutor acquit [former Regional Military commander] Adam Damiri? If the prosecution didn't have enough evidence on him, why indict him? It's the prosecutor's job to find evidence. The DPR must now investigate whether there is the possibility of abuse in this case.

What went wrong in the East Timor human rights trial?

There were doubts that the tribunal on East Timor did not meet international standards. That is why UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has proposed the formation of a commission of experts to study the case.

This will be the basis of his report to the UN Security Council.

If the report is really bad, it would ruin Indonesia's image. There is the possibility, although a small one, that an international human rights tribunal on this will be formed. Right now our Foreign Affairs Department is working overtime to prevent the establishment of such a commission.

The problem is, why didn't the DPR evaluate the performance of that ad hoc human rights tribunal? It's happening in our own backyard!

Truthfully, was our human rights tribunal formed in order to try those who violated human rights, or was it to prevent an international human rights tribunal from trying us?

That's a matter of interpretation. Certainly, the existence of such a tribunal indicates that Komnas HAM, the attorney general, the DPR and the president agree there has been serious violation of human rights. The fact that it is ad hoc is fair enough. That is what must be evaluated. There are opinions that favor trials being held in an Indonesian court than an international tribunal. But if domestic courts are unable to handle such trials, we cannot prevent international parties from coming in. Serious violations of human rights have become an international concern. So, it will always attract worldwide attention. Whether we agree or not with the establishment of a commission of experts, is a moot point.

International sanctions, however, are not limited to an international human rights tribunal. Sanctions can come in other forms.

The Justice Department has just executed Ayodhya Prasad Chaubey. What is Komnas HAM's view on the death penalty?

International law does not actually forbid the death penalty. But there is a condition: that it should not be someone under 18 years nor a pregnant woman. But since the right to live is universally accepted, there is a recognition that the death penalty should be eliminated in stages. The philosophy behind this death penalty is revenge. Today, the concept of punishment is education. Besides, empirical data show that the death penalty does not reduce crime. If it does, it is only temporary. The root causes of crime are unemployment, poverty and social destruction.

Can it be said that the death penalty is a human rights violation?

From life's point of view, the death penalty contravenes human rights.

So if Prof. Achmad Ali (Law professor of Hassanudin University and member of Komnas HAM-Ed.) says that the death penalty is still needed for special crimes, he is using the theory of revenge. But is it effective in suppressing crime? I don't think so.

The police are suspected of torturing Ustad (Islamic religious teacher) Syaifuddin in East Java. Is that how our police force operates?

There are many reports about the police committing human rights violations when handling cases. On Amrozi, there's a lawyer's report on torture by the police. So Komnas HAM has investigated and monitored such accusations, like the incidents at Bulukumba and Manggarai. The results of Komnas HAM's investigation are submitted to the necessary organizations so that improvements are made. I contacted the police chief to ensure that the Komnas HAM findings are not stored away. We will implement a note of agreement between Komnas HAM and the police on monitoring the work of the police. We will try this mechanism first.

Is the fact that the police are using torture an indication of their lack of professionalism?

That should be verified on a case-by-case basis. We have ratified international regulations regarding torture by public officials. So the police cannot use torture to obtain a confession. If that is still practiced, this system used by the police must be corrected. Komnas HAM is still investigating the police's use of violence. This also reflects the police's lack of professionalism. Even without the international ratification, the police can still be brought to court if torture is used.

If public officials commit torture, the punishment should be heavier than normal.

By the way, how is Komnas HAM doing these days?

We are investigating many cases: the police shooting at Bulukumba, Manggarai and an old case in Buru Island. Most of the cases still deal with problems of land ownership and eviction. Komnas HAM is not a non-government organization, and it is neither a social organization. This is a state institution. Our budget comes from the National Budget. I receive a salary of Rp12 million a month. But compared to the Corruption Eradication Commission, we are nothing. Their director gets Rp25 million a month.

That is why I still have my law practice. What is important is that there is no conflict of interest.

How does Komnas HAM compare with similar institutions in other countries?

In the whole world, there are 100 such human rights commissions. The latest one was formed last February in Saudi Arabia. Compared with such countries, including Malaysia and Thailand, we are in far better condition. They don't have pro-justisia authority like we do.