Indonesian human rights activists have condemned a court decision clearing a top army general of gross human rights violations for his role in a 1984 military massacre. In the second case to be dealt with by the country's special human rights court, the head of Indonesia's elite Kopassus forces, Major General Sriyanto Muntarsan, has been acquitted of ordering the shootings of Muslim protestors at Tanjung Priok in north Jakarta.

Presenter/Interviewer: Marion MacGregor

Speakers: Asmara Nababan, Executive Director, the independent Institute for Human Rights and Democracy Studies; Dr Harold Crouch, Senior Fellow, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University

MacGregor: Major General Sriyanto was operations chief of the North Jakarta Military Command when his soldiers opened fire on a crowd of about fifteen hundred unarmed Muslims in the Jakarta district of Tanjung Priok, on the night of September the twelfth, 1984. Investigators say as many as twenty-four people died in the massacre and hundreds more were injured.

The Chief prosecutor Darmono demanded that General Sriyanto be jailed for ten years for ordering his troops to shoot into the crowd. But the panel of judges said the prosecution had failed to prove that any human rights abuses occurred that day. Asmara Nababan, Executive Director of the independent Institute for Human Rights and Democracy Studies, is disappointed, but not surprised by the verdict.

The acquittal of Sriyanto reflects the weakness of the judiciary system in Indonesia, especially in this case of the competence of the Attorney General as a prosecutor. It shows not only in the Tanjung Priok case but in the East Timor case, how they are not willing to provide material evidence and witnesses, which of course gives trouble for the judges to uphold the justice.

MacGregor: Earlier this week, the court cleared former Major General Pranowo, who headed Jakarta's military police in 1984, of failing to prevent the torture of Muslims during the Tanjung Priok massacre. The Muslim protesters were seeking the release of four people detained by the military under the rule of then-president Suharto. Asmara Nababan says little has changed since then.

Nababan: Even though Suharto is no longer in power, the military position on political life in Indonesia is still intact. They are still a strategic power-holder in Indonesia which can easily influence the branches of the state like the executive and judiciary system.

MacGregor: Dr Harold Crouch, at the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies agrees the post-Suharto administration has failed to deliver on promised reforms of the judicial system.

Crouch: There was this feeling when the human rights courts were set up that the courts would be more independent or more able to give judgments that were not favourable to the military people accused. But it looks in fact what's happening is just the old system's continuing, The only difference I suppose, since Suharto fell is that these people are brought to court, and occasionally they're actually found guilty the first time around. So at least there's some sort of public humiliation for some of these people in the present system, but it's still far short of real justice.

MacGregor: The Tanjung Priok case is the second to come before Indonesia's human rights court. The first dealt with the 1999 carnage surrounding East Timor's vote to secede from Indonesia. So far the court's failed to uphold a conviction against a single member of Indonesia's security forces.

Indonesian human rights groups are now concerned about the prospect that foreign governments like Australia will use the not guilty rulings to push through plans to resume military training with the Kopassus. As he left the court, General Sriyanto declared he wants his units to take part in joint training exercises with Australia. Dr Harold Crouch again.

Crouch: I would expect the Australian government's reaction to be to wait till his tour of duty has ended and he's moved on somewhere else. And then Australia might give some consideration to that. I don't find a problem with Australia co-operating with the Indonesian military in areas that are essentially defence, the problem with Kopassus is that its activities are basically internal security.

Nababan: I think the Australian government should really reconsider to resume their co-operation with Kopassus. It will give the wrong message to the people of Indonesia that this Kopassus as a problematic institution in Indonesia, gets support from the government of Australia.

MacGregor: There's an argument though that Australia needs to co-operate with Kopassus or with the Indonesian elite forces to co-ordinate strategic, counter-terrorism and other activities in the region.

Nababan: It's clear for me at least that the priority for the government of Australia is the war against terrorism and did not consider the human rights respect in Indonesia.

MacGregor: But it it's going to respect the rule of law in Indonesia, the judicial system which has just acquitted General Sriyanto, then it should be able to go ahead and do business with General Sriyanto...

Nababan: I would not say that because concerning the Kopassus, they are a problematic institution in terms of human rights, not only in the case of Sriyanto, but for many years.