Font size: 
Given the past reluctance of the police and attorney general's office to conduct efficient, impartial and effective investigations into past crimes and human rights violations, it is hardly surprising, however, that the Indonesian people have few expectations of their government rendering justice. It is a question of whether investigations will focus primarily on the falsification of documents that enabled accused killer Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, an off-duty Garuda pilot, to be on the flight, or whether it will actually provide important clues to solving Munir's murder.
In his 2005 conviction in the case, it was Pollycarpus who was found guilty of having falsified the documents authorising him to be on the Garuda flight to Singapore on which Munir was a passenger and for which Pollycarpus was sentenced to two years in prison. Thus, similar fears are evoked in the minds of people who are yet to be convinced of the commitment of institutions attached to Indonesia's prosecution system. Consequently, the case of Munir is not simply a crime waiting to be solved but a test of the credibility of the prosecution system itself in the country.
The prosecution system has thus far conveniently taken cover under petty technicalities in domestic legislation and/or in its application and has dodged all serious attempts at conducting investigations into any of the major human rights violations committed by the government despite protests from both the local and international community. This unwillingness to properly investigate the abuse of Indonesians' rights has contributed to sustaining the prevailing culture of impunity rampant in the country, the notion that anyone can get away with anything, even murder, if they have the right connections.
Coming in the shadow of a number of gross human rights violations which have either been inadequately investigated or have dragged on for years -- by which time either the witnesses are unable to recall the incident or have succumbed to illness or old age, resulting in the cases being dismissed -- questions need to be asked about the criminal investigation system itself. Numerous attempts to appeal to the attorney general have been futile. The impression given is critics are expecting the impossible.
In Indonesia over the years, there has been neither the need nor the possibility for a system of criminal investigation to emerge. During the time of Suharto's dictatorship beginning in the mid-1960s, the national context neither required nor guaranteed any independent criminal investigation. The executive's grip on the power of the judiciary was so overwhelming that impartiality ceased to be respected by the police, attorney general or the judiciary itself.
A proper criminal justice system can only emerge when the fundamental principles of democracy are in place. If the investigators are threatened or their investigations are rejected or subjected to political interference and obstruction, the emergence of truth will be stifled. What has occurred in the past is that suspects would be tried one or two times; and if the judicial response was negative or only caused further anguish for the victims and their families, the lack of any meaningful justice would foster a mentality to just toe the line.
This state of affairs has persisted for so long -- more than 40 years, in fact -- that it is difficult to shed such habits overnight. When the judiciary is determined to provide impunity to the perpetrators of crimes rather than justice for its victims, the entire prosecution system and its various institutions begin to play devious roles to retain their status, power and privileges, inviting corruption to thrive in the process.
This dismal state of Indonesia's prosecution system has been further aggravated by the subservience of the police to the military. Until recently, the police had no autonomy, and their role in criminal investigations was often a subordinate one -- conditions that obstructed the emergence of a system of policing that would ensure proper investigations. In addition, their subordinate role did not encourage them to acquire any advanced investigation techniques.
In such a context, the use of torture as a method of investigation became commonplace. This fact of life in Indonesia is confirmed by the half-hearted approach of the government toward ratifying the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Though the convention was eventually ratified in 1998, no proper corresponding domestic legislation has been passed that would criminalize the use of torture, thereby denying the use of the law to prevent torture or to offer redress to victims.
The departure of Suharto in 1998 did not by itself ensure the emergence of a proper criminal investigation system. The sense of futility; continuation of the same people in various positions; the prevailing corruption, including that in the judiciary; the demand for the police to play military functions; and the simple absence of the habit of conducting impartial and effective investigations has barred the emergence of a criminal investigation system.
An effective and properly functioning criminal investigation system is the product of several factors: tradition, skills and training; democratic space; demands from the people; and the absence of interference by the executive. It is not expected to emerge overnight. The habit of lethargy over the years, when combined with the lack of standards, checks and balances or simply logistical support, is not easy to overcome, but it can be achieved over time.
A society that has witnessed the steady demise of all systems of justice has clung to the hope that the murder and subsequent investigation of Munir's murder would trigger its gradual emergence. The question is whether the present political leadership is willing and able to provide the democratic space required for the establishment of a just and fair criminal justice system upon which peace and development in the country can be built. If not, there is little hope that the human rights of Indonesia's people will be promoted and protected.
--
(Philip Setunga is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong. His work has focused on human rights issues in Indonesia for the past six years. He holds a doctorate in sociology from the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.)
