Agung Yudhawiranata, Jakarta – The Commission of Truth and Friendship (CTF) involving Timor Leste and Indonesia is organizing the fifth in its series of public hearings in Dili from Sept. 24-27.

In previous public hearings, the CTF has failed on several accounts in attempts to credibly expose gross human rights violations in Timor Leste in 1999; they failed to accommodate the victims' quest for justice, avoided cross-examining the alleged perpetrators' dismissal of accountability and accused the UN Assistance Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) of being the antagonist in the bloodshed in Timor Leste at that time. The CTF also failed to find those responsible for the atrocities before and after the referendum in August 1999.

On several occasions the CTF has invited former UNAMET staff, including former special representative of the secretary-general, Ian Martin, to testify. However, the UN has explicitly stated it will not support the commission process because it was not established according to international human rights standards. The terms of reference of the CTF envisage the possibility that it may recommend amnesty, and do not preclude it from making such a recommendation even in cases where serious violations of international humanitarian law have occurred.

The commission's lack of credibility was seen when it failed to revise the terms of reference – and amnesty was made available to perpetrators when they confessed and apologized for their wrongdoings. The widely criticized terms of reference violate the "no safe haven" principle, which states that there is no place or mechanism for perpetrators to avoid responsibility.

The UN Human Rights Committee appealed in 1982 to all nations to guarantee that "guilty perpetrators must be responsible, and human rights violation victims should obtain effective remedy and compensation." The CTF ignores the aut dedere aut punire principle, which stands as an international foundation of universal jurisdiction and considers human rights violations as a problem and an enemy of all human kind.

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan said in his report, Justice and Reconciliation for Timor Leste, that perpetrators must be dealt with justly in an independent and fair proceeding. Meanwhile the CTF continues to propose amnesty to the same perpetrators, as a sign of good will.

Civil society organizations in Indonesia and Timor Leste have condemned the impunity granted by the commission. They have urged the commission to practice a more genuine form of justice and to stop being partial to perpetrators of gross human rights abuse.

Grievances of victims' families and civil society organizations in Timor Leste and Indonesia seen during public hearings reflect the commission's tendency to protect perpetrators and water-down the truth on human rights abuse.

The CTF stands on poor foundations in terms of the promotion of reconciliation and the rule of law, when the impunity it offers undermines the (international) judicial system and victims of abuse have long been denied access to justice much less reparation or compensation.

Therefore, the first step to repair the commission's lack of credibility would be the amendment of its terms of reference. Furthermore, providing amnesty based on confessions will not resolve the fundamental question of the political will of a nation in the face of international human rights treaties.

In cases of independent investigation into human rights violations, Indonesian Commissioners should offer impartial cooperation, focussing on justice under the UN conventions and international human rights principles rather than "nationalizing" issues. As a member of the Human Rights Council and Security Council, Indonesia must become open and willing to achieve a credible and transparent judiciary process.

Indonesia and Timor Leste's governments must end this farce and work toward justice and accountability in addressing the atrocities committed in Timor Leste during the Indonesian occupation. Serious crimes such as those which occurred in East Timor in 1999 are not a national matter to be resolved in bilateral agreements, but a concern for the international community as well.

If an ad hoc international tribunal is not feasible, then the alternative is not to entirely to abandon efforts to bring justice. The commission should prioritize the livelihood of victims and not protect perpetrators who serve the interests of both countries' elite. The Commission's lack of authority to prosecute perpetrators is just a sign of a deteriorating judicial process in Indonesia.

[The writer is a researcher for the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM). He can be contacted at agung@elsam.or.id]