Disappearance Case in Indonesia in Tempo Magazine

The Senayan Kidnapping Case

Komnas HAM concludes that the 1997-1998 kidnapping case was a severe case of human rights abuse. The AGO awaits a political decision from the DPR.

THE abduction will not be easily erased from Mugiyanto’s memory. He was kidnapped in March 1998 and taken hostage for several days in an unknown location in Cijantung, East Jakarta. During his time there he was abused, kicked, and electrocuted.

Mugiyanto is considered lucky to have been released, unlike several other kidnap victims. Now he is Chairman of the Indonesian Missing Persons Alliance. This organization continues to put pressure on the government to reveal the kidnapping cases of several activists in 1997 and 1998. “That’s why, even though there is not much new information, the Human Rights Commission report on the kidnapped victims relieves us,” said the former People’s Democratic Party (PRD) Chairman.

Two weeks ago, the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) announced its findings on 23 missing people, most of whom are activists from the PRD. Komnas HAM declared that the kidnapping case was a severe abuse of human rights. In the 1,000-page report, Komnas HAM mentioned five crimes that were committed during the course of the kidnapping; murder, abuse of personal freedom, physical abuse, cruel treatment, and forced abduction.

Ten of the 23 kidnap victims were released unharmed: Mugiyanto, Aan Rusdianto, Nezar Patria, Faisol Riza, Raharjo Waluyo Jati, Haryanto Taslam, Andi Arief, Pius Lustrilanang, Desmon J. Mahesa, and a man with the initials S.T. The 14 who remain missing are: Yanie Afri, Sony, Herman Hendrawan, Dedi Hamdun, Noval Alkatiri, Ismail, Suyat, Petrus Bima Anugerah, Wiji Thukul, Ucok Munandar, Hendra Hambali, Yadin Muhidin, and Abdun Naser.

The inquiry began when a task force was created to investigate the kidnapping of activists during the May 1998 riots and the forced abduction cases. At the end of their duty period last year, the task force recommended that an ad hoc team investigate the kidnapping cases. As a result the ad hoc team was formed to investigate severe abuses of human rights and forced abduction during the 1997-1998 period.

Since it was founded last year, the team has questioned 77 people. Fifty-eight of them were the kidnap victims or their relatives. Not all of the victims agreed to testify. Andi Arief, Desmond J. Mahesa, and Pius Lustrilanang, for instance, refused to give testimony. “I don’t want to testify for unknown people,” Mahesa told Tempo.

According to the ad hoc investigation team, 20 people were responsible for the abductions. An Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander in Chief, the Jaya Regional Military Commander, the National Police Chief, the Army Chief of Staff and former President Suharto are among those who are suspected of involvement in the kidnappings. Results of the report of the ad hoc team investigation were examined during the Komnas HAM plenary meeting on Wednesday two weeks ago.

The atmosphere in the plenary meeting was very tense. One member, Major-General (ret) Samsuddin disagreed with the team’s conclusion. “He questioned the issue of ‘Under Orders Command’ (BKO) and the word ‘systematic’ that was frequently used by the team,” explained a Komnas HAM member. At the end of the meeting a vote was held to determine how many members agreed with the findings of the ad hoc team. Komnas HAM Chairman, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, asked the members who agreed with the team’s conclusion to raise their hands. The result was unanimous: 19 out of 20 members raised their hands.

When he was asked to confirm his statement, Samsuddin declared that the evidence that the ad hoc team had on the troops’ BKO was questionable. “I have strong reason to reject the evidence. It is not because I am a former member of the TNI,” he said. According to Samsuddin, there should be further analysis of this matter.

Last Friday, the Komnas HAM conclusion was delivered to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). “We have to move on with the investigation,” said Nusantara to Tempo. According to Nusantara, even if the House of Representatives (DPR) does not recommend the investigation of the 10 cases of released victims, they should do so for the 13 who remain missing. “Without the DPR recommendation, the prosecution still has to investigate the case because those victims are still missing,” said Nusantara.

Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh, disagrees with Nusantara. According to him, the Komnas HAM opinion is confusing. “The cases are past affairs,” said Abdul Rahman. He believes, what they need now is a statement from the DPR that the cases were severe human rights abuses so that the judicial process can be reversed. “The final key needed to reopen the case is not in the judiciary, but at Senayan (site of the DPR),” he said.

Commission for Missing Persons & Victims of Violence Coordinator, Usman Hamid, is anxious that the case will have the same dead-end fate as the Trisakti and Semanggi cases. “This is actually a public matter,” said Hamid.

Indonesian Army Headquarters, which was implicated in this case, will ask the Legal Establishment Service (Banbinkum) to examine the Komnas HAM report. “Banbinkum will study the case in accordance with the legal process,” TNI Commander in Chief, Marshal Djoko Suyanto, told Dimas Adityo from Tempo.

Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, whose name was revealed in the Komnas HAM report, also stated that he had disclosed everything to Banbinkum. “I will face whatever I should face,” said the former Jaya Regional Military Commander who is currently the Defense Department Secretary-General.

Abdul Manan, Maria Hasugian, Ramidi
Tempo Magazine, No. 12/VII/Nov 21 - 27, 2006


An Uphill Battle
Nov 20
THE National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) is supported by the law but has little or no chance in facing the Indonesian Military (TNI). During the course of investigating former and current army members who are suspected of involvement in the kidnapping of activists, only one out of the 23 summoned personnel is willing to testify.

On the other hand, only three out of 61 civilians summoned have refused to testify, all of the police personnel have complied with the summons, including former Police Chief, General (ret) Dibyo Widodo.

Komnas HAM has tried everything in its power to summon the army personnel. The first summons, sent by special courier, failed. Several personnel have moved away, one security guard refused to receive the summons, and one district official refused to deliver the letter.
The only officer who obeyed the first summons was Lt. Gen. (ret) Yusuf Kartanegara, a former member of the Officers’ Honor Council which investigated Prabowo Subianto and Muchdi Pr. Komnas HAM failed to extract further information from Kartanegara. “In most of his responses he claims to have forgotten details of the incidents,” said a member of the Komnas HAM ad hoc investigation team.

The second summons was sent. The summons were re-sent to those with completed addresses, and for those with unclear addresses the summons were sent to their authorities, and for the ones with unknown addresses, the summons were displayed at the Komnas HAM information board.

No response. Komnas HAM then sent a letter to the TNI Commander in Chief, Marshal Djoko Suyanto, to arrange a meeting for discussing how to call on those personnel. Djoko answered through the Legal Establishment Service: a House of Representatives (DPR) recommendation must be required before Komnas HAM can start the case investigation.

Undeterred, Komnas HAM asked the Jakarta District Court to petition an active officer and five other army officers who were suspects in the cases. However, the court refused the request because a forced summons can only be executed in an investigation.

Why do the army officers resist the summons? Army spokesperson, Colonel Ahmad Yani Basuki, told Tempo there was no resistance. The TNI personnel are merely following the already established law in such cases. The investigation of human rights abuse cases requires the recommendation of the government and the army is obeying this stipulation, he said.

Abdul Manan
Tempo Magazine, No. 12/VII/Nov 21 - 27, 2006

Testimony to the UN SR on HRD, Ms. Hina Jilani

Testimony before the UN Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on the Situation of the Human Rights Defenders Ms. Hina Jilani

during the Public Hearing in Jakarta, June 7, 2007

Mugiyanto; Born on November 2, 1973; Survivor of the disappearances; Chairperson of Indonesian Association of Families of the Disappeared (IKOHI) and Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD);

As a chairperson of IKOHI, what I do is to run organization that has three mandates. They are: 1) Data basing and documenting cases of disappearances throughout Indonesia, 2) Empowering the victims and relatives of victims of human rights violation particularly disappearances in the field of social and politics and economic and psychological welfare, 3) Campaigning and conducting advocacy for truth and justice by demanding state accountability for the cases of disappearances and other cases of gross human rights violation.

Besides conducting campaign and advocacy nationally, IKOHI as a member or the Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) is also active in international advocacy, such as by reporting the cases of disappearances and meeting with the UN WGEID in Geneva. IKOHI also frequently presents during the Sessions of UN Human Rights Commissions and the then Human Rights Council to deliver oral interventions.

In conducting those activities I have experienced obstructions from various levels of authorities and parties:

1. On May 30 2005, along with three other persons I received a letter of death threat sent to my office by a person using a name of M Julfikar from the defender of the New Order. In the letter he said that that I am a communist and disturbing stability in relation to the fights for justice for the Trisakti and Semanggi Student Shooting case (TSS) and accordingly within 15 days I will be executed. I reported this case to the police station in Jakarta but there is no follow up whatsoever. I also reported the case to the UNWGEID having meeting in Bangkok, Thailand and then the UNWGEID released a Prompt Interventions for Reprisals.
2. During the Sessions of UN Commission of Human Rights in March 2004, I was harrashed, intimidated, discouraged by a staff of the Indonesian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva to not bringing the cases of disappearances to the United Nations. I report this case orally to the ministry of foreign affairs in Jakarta, but no positive response was given, let alone expression of apology.
3. I along with other colleagues of human rights defenders in my organization in 14 regions working among the victims of human rights violation with different political backgrounds; many of them being the victims because they were accused of being communists, separatists and terrorists, are very often being subjected to verbal and physical terror, intimidation and stigmatization. In such situation, we are hesitant to make a report to the police, because we believe that they are part of the game.
4. I along with my colleagues in my organization also face difficulties in organizing the victims because the perpetrators are directly or indirectly intimidating them and preventing them from going out of their villages to struggle for justice, like what happens to those handling the case of Lampung Tragedy in 1989.

In such situation, we can not freely do our works because of haunted with threat of violence and limitation of mobility. And perhaps it is also because of this situation that our works in fighting for the upholding of human rights, truth and justice are like facing iron wall. That’s what we understand of impunity.

We are also worried with the fact that most perpetrators of human rights violations are still free and unaccountable for what they have done. Many of them are even promoted and having strategic position in the government structure. They are at any time free do what they want against people like us.

Thank you very much.

-------------------------

Kesaksian Mugiyanto – IKOHI
kepada Wakil Sekjen PBB untuk Pembela HAM, Ms. Hina Jilani
Jakarta, June 7, 2007

Mugiyanto; Lahir 2 November 1973; Korban selamat kasus penghilangan paksa tahun 1998;
Ketua Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia (IKOHI) dan AFAD;

Sebagai ketua IKOHI, yang saya lakukan adalah menjalan organisasi saya yang memiliki 3 mandat kerja, yaitu:
1) Melakukan pendataan dan dokumentasi kasus penghilangan paksa di seluruh Indonesia,
2) Melakukan pemberdayaan korban dan keluarga korban pelanggaran HAM khususnya penghilangan paksa di bidang sosial dan politik serta ekonomi dan psikologi,
3) Melakukan kampanye dan advokasi untuk kebenaran dan keadilan dengan menuntut pertanggungjawaban negara atas kasus-kasus penghilangan paksa dan kasus pelanggaran berat HAM lainnya.

Disamping melakukan kegiatan kampanye dan advokasi di tingkat nasional, IKOHI sebagai anggota AFAD (Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances ) juga aktif dalam advokasi internasional, misalnya dengan melaporkan kasus penghilangan paksa dan mengadakan pertemuan dengan UNWGEID (United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances) di Jenewa, Swiss. Saya juga beberapa kali menghadiri sidang Komisi HAM PBB dan Dewan HAM PBB untuk memberikan intervensi lisan.

Dalam menjalankan kegiatan-kegiatan tersebut, saya pernah mengalami beberapa hambatan dan gangguan dari aparat pemerintah dan pihak-pihak lain seperti:
1. Pada tanggal 30 Mei 2005 saya bersama dengan 3 orang lain menerima surat ancaman pembunuhan yang dikirim ke kantor saya dari seorang yang mengaku bernama M Julfikar sebagai pembela Orde Baru. Dalam surat tersebut ia mengatakan bahwa saya adalah komunis dan pembuat kekacauan sehubungan pengungkapan kasus Trisakti dan Semanggi (TSS) dan karenanya dalam 15 hari saya akan dibunuh. Teman-teman IKOHI melaporkan kasus ini ke polisi di Jakarta, tetapi tidak ada tanggapan apapun. Saya juga melaporkan kasus ini ke UNWGEID yang sedang mengadakan sidang di Bangkok Thailand, dan mereka langsung mengeluarkan Prompt Interventions for Reprisals.
2. Dalam Sidang Komisi HAM PBB bulan Maret 2004 di Jenewa saya mengalami pelecehan dan intimidasi dari seorang staff Perwakilan Tetap Indonesia di PBB, Jenewa, karena saya membawa dan melaporkan kasus-kasus penghilangan paksa di Indonesia ke PBB di Jenewa.
Atas kasus ini, saya melaporkan secara lisan ke kementerian luar negeri di Jakarta, tapi merekapun tidak memberikan tanggapan positif seperti meminta maaf.
3. Saya bersama-sama dengan teman-teman pembela HAM lain dalam organisasi saya di 14 daerah yang bekerja diantara korban pelanggaran HAM dari berbagai latar belakang politik; banyak diantara mereka yang menjadi korban karena mereka dituduh komunis, separatis, terorris dan lain-lain, juga sering mengalami terror verbal dan fisik, intimidasi dan stigmatisasi. Dalam kasus seperti ini, kami ragu untuk melapor ke polisi karena kami mencurigai mereka juga bagian dari semua kejadian ini.
4. Saya bersama dengan teman-teman saya di organisasi saya juga mengalami kesulitan dalam mengorganisasikan korban, karena ternyata para pelaku baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung menakut-nakuti korban dan membatasi mobilitas korban untuk tidak berjuang menuntut keadilan seperti teman-teman kami yang menangani kasus tragedi di Lampung 1989.

Dalam situasi yang demikian, kami tidak bisa bekerja secara bebas karena dihantui ancaman kekerasan dan pembatasan ruang gerak. Dan mungkin karena situasi ini pula lah yang menjadikan pekerjaan menegakkan HAM, kebenaran dan keadilan seperti selalu menghadapi tembok besi. Dri sinilah kami memahami apa yang namanya impunitas.

Saya juga khawatir karena sebagian besar (kalau tidak semua) pelaku pelanggaran HAM masih bebas berkeliaran dan tidak mempertanggungjawabkan apa yang mereka telah lakukan. Bahkan banyak diantara mereka yang naik pangkat dan memiliki jabatan strategis di pemerintah. Sewaktu-waktu mereka bisa saja melakukan berbagai tindak kekerasan kepada orang-orang seperti kami ini

Terima kasih