The House of Representatives recently selected 11 new members of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM). The Commission has yet to appoint a chairman, as it will be installed in September. One of the member-elects, M. Ridha Saleh, talked with The Jakarta Post's Tony Hotland about the commission's 2007-2012 vision and target.

Question: There's a prevailing view that Komnas HAM is impaired and has not had the impact it was supposed to have had. Can you suggest a solution?

Answer: There are three important things about Komnas HAM that need reviewing, based on the experiences of commission members during the last tenure.

First, it is essential that Komnas HAM works beyond just providing recommendations. There is a need for procedural rights, which will enable us to file lawsuits against those who fail to carry out recommendations. We need the power to be able to put pressure on failing parties.

For instance, if we find that a department is not doing its job and it's practices violate the economy and social welfare rights of the public, we will offer recommendations (to improve the condition), perhaps through a budget mechanism. If the department continues to fail, we should have the power to file a lawsuit against it.

Second, all members or staff of Komnas HAM must be legally protected and granted immunity in carrying out their tasks and investigations. There should be no threats posed to commissioners.

Third, Komnas HAM should also be provided with subpoena rights. We should be able to summon anyone relating to an investigation. If these three things happen, the image of Komnas HAM – as an institution dedicated to guarding human rights in the country – might improve.

And these points are what the new commissioners are looking at with the planned revision of the 1999 Law on Human Rights?

Yes. Moreover, the law should be changed to the law on human rights enforcement rather than just the law on human rights.

Currently, Komnas HAM forwards recommendations to the Attorney General's Office to be taken into consideration. Do you think Komnas HAM should take over the whole process?

For alleged gross human rights abuses, I think the litigation process should remain with the prosecutor's office. We have the 2000 law on Human Rights Tribunal, but that's for gross human rights cases. But we don't deal with such cases every day. There are common violations of human rights that are more at the grassroots level. We do plan to raise the issue of seeing if the human rights tribunal should, or should not, be under our auspices.

The fact that enforcement of human rights here is always besmirched with political tones justifies the reasons why Komnas HAM should be allowed to press charges against those who refuse to take our recommendations seriously.

An alleged gross human rights abuse cannot be automatically brought to a human rights tribunal because such a thing requires a permit from the House of Representatives. This is why I think Komnas HAM should enhance its strategic communication skills, mostly with parliament.

If we believe a gross human rights abuse has occurred and recommend a tribunal be launched, and the House turns a blind eye, we should have the power to bring the House to court on charges that it allowed the continuation of human rights violations... that it has become an instrument of the violations.

Does the review also consider the resolution of old human rights cases – for example, the Trisakti and Semanggi shootings or the May 1998 riot – which are still being stalled at the prosecutor's office and the House?

At the end of the last tenure, Komnas HAM was speeding at 90 kilometers per hour, from the 60 previously. It is without question that we must pick up where they left off at 90. We will definitely revise these old, unresolved cases. We've had discussions and we will bring them to the surface, and talk more with the victims on what direction we should head to in order to resolve the cases. This will involve strategic dialog, as it is quite political, so there should be an analysis on the political dynamics. We'll see.

We're also looking at probing newer cases, such as the Pasuruan shooting (by marines) and Lapindo's role in the Sidoarjo mudflow incident, as these fall under our jurisdiction to assess.

What about the need for additional commissioners, as the law stipulates the number should be 35 yet the House has only put through 11?

The law states there should be 35. And the agreement we had with the House when we were passed as commissioners was that we should bring forward candidates to be tested. I think we can have more people, but no more than 20.

From what we saw in the last tenure, commissioners did not perform their tasks optimally. I prefer we empower the commission's representatives at the regional level. They are the ones tasked with the difficult job. So they should be given more support and we should assign more representatives.

Fewer commissioners, though, allows for better communication and a hopefully quicker decision-making process. Commissioners should also have the option to employ expert staff. We definitely have reasons why having fewer commissioners is the best option.