---

Victim families of May ‘98 activists kidnapping Paian Siahaan and Ruyati Darwin after attended petition revision session on Act of Human Rights Courts, on Wednesday (8/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

May ’98 victim families revised their petition for judicial review on Act Number 26 Year 2000 of Human Rights Courts (Undang-Undang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia), on Wednesday (8/7), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Applicant’s Attorney Chrisbiantoro and Tioria Pretty delivered the revision which conducted on petition systematics and the consistency of the posita with the petitum, as advised by Justice Panel on previous session.

“Generally, we revise our petition into three categories. The first is its systematic which becomes one of the Justice Panel inputs. The second is the consistency of the posita with the petitum. The third is, the petitum itself,” said Chrisbiantoro in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

According to the Applicant, the consistency referred was focused on the loss suffered by human rights abuse victims which caused by the enactment of Act of Human Rights Court. Regarding the petitum, the Applicant requested conditionally constitutional interpretation of Article 20 (3) Act a quo and its elucidation, particularly on the phrase ‘incomplete’ in terms of the investigation of human rights abuse.  

“In terms the investigators argue investigation result is incomplete, as referred in paragraph (2), the investigators are immediately return the result with a clear guidance as stipulated in Article 8 and Article 9 Act of Human Rights Courts,” said Tioria when explaining constitutional interpretation Applicant intended.  

“We request interpretation in order that what is meant by ‘incomplete’ is insufficiently met the element of serious human rights abuse to be proceed to investigation, as well as criminal offenses which explained in Article 8, Article 9 Act of Human Rights Courts and its elucidations,” added her at the session of case number 75/PUU-XIII/2015.

The Applicant were Paian Siahaan, father of activist Ucok Munandar Siahaan who kidnapped in 1997 and Yati Uryati, mother of Eten Karyana who was a victim of May ’98. They both filed petition on Act of Human Rights Court to the Constitutional Court. They considered Supreme Court’s decision which didn’t follow up the investigation of the National Human Rights Commission (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia –Komnas HAM) on alleged serious human rights abuse of May ’98 Tragedy, had harmed Applicant’s constitutional rights. As known, the Supreme Court had been returned human rights investigation files as much as seven times to the Komnas HAM.     

Based on the letter numbered b-210/F.2/Fd.1/03/2013 received by the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Komisi Untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan –KontraS) regarding the proceedings of serious human rights abuse on Trisakti Tragedy, Attorney General argued that the investigation yet conducted due to the cases considered irrelevant to be proceeded to investigation stage. The House of Representatives had recommended to Attorney General that the cases adjudicated in the Military Court, in which the perpetrators had been declared guilty and sentenced by the Military Court.

Regarding the investigation report of May ’98 Tragedy conducted by the National Human Rights Commission, Attorney General returned the report by Attorney General Letter Number R-056/A/F.6/04/2008 dated April 28, 2008 with instruction "waiting for the establishment of the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court". According to the Applicant, the Komnas HAM had noted a number of unresolved human rights cases, such as Trisakti Tragedy, Semanggi I and II Tragedy, May ’98 riot, and Talangsari ’89 Tragedy. (Julie/Prasetyo Adi N) 

---