Indonesia Government See Decision of IPT Illogical
Jum'at, 22 Juli 2016 - 07:01 WIB
Indonesia Government See Decision of IPT Illogical
A
A
A
JAKARTA - Indonesia government stated that the recent decision of the International Peoples Tribunal (IPT) is illogical.
For known, IPT has said the Indonesian government must be held responsible for the human rights violations that have happened in the country in 1965.
Coordinating Minister for Political, Security and Legal Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan said, IPT is a mere non-governmental organization and so it is not appropriate to equalize it with the government.
"That does make sense to me. It is a mere NGO. How can an NGO be my counterpart? Think of it," he said while commenting on the issue at his office, Thursday (21/7).
The minister also doubted the truth of the information contained in IPTs decision that Indonesia had committed crimes against humanity in 1965-1966, including the killing of 400,000 to 500,000 members, alleged members of the then Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and supporters of President Soekarno and members of the radial Indonesia Nationalist Party (PNI) and their families.
He said the figures were not tabulated, based upon accurate data, but from a mere report filed by a fact-finding team led by then retired Major General Sumarno before President Soekarno.
Luhut pointed out that he knew it from retired Lieutenant General Sintong Pandjaitan, who was in charge of leading the armys special force Kopassus (RPKAD) in Pati, Central Java, in 1965.
"Sumarno mentioned 75,000, but then Bung Karno (President Soekarno) argued how could the number be that small? No, it is wrong. It has to be four times that. So, it comes to 400,000. Thats what he (Sumarno) said then. Of course we understand that the situation then is not as transparent as it is now," Luhut said.
He said the Indonesian government would not consider IPTs decision because it was made based merely on assumptions.
READ MORE: Indonesia Responsible for and Guilty... US, UK and Australia Were Complicit
Meanwhile, Zaki Mubarok, International political observer said, People's tribunal simply aim to create excitement without having a clear legal basis on its decision.
"There are several similar cases were 'judged' by the 'People's Tribunal', but because they do not have clarity in the continuation of his decision, then it just faded away. 'Decision' they are very biased and one-sided because only hear the events in 1965 without seeing or 'judge' in the previous year," said this PhD Student and UN DOALOS Fellow-Holder of Master of International Law and International Relations of UNSW.
He added, IPT is not contained in the official international court system and the nature of 'judgment' it is a recommendation.
"How could there be a system of so-called 'trial' but the nature of its recommendation decision. The Hague there is no mention as though his position with the International court of justice or ICJ based in The Hague. Though completely different, not to be falsified by the ICJ that are legally binding in its award," he said.
One of the forum could hear was the International Criminal court. But Indonesia decided not to become a party or a State Party to the convention. In international law, there is the traditional nature of his still attached, namely the need for consent to be bound to participate in a convention that the decision of its binding and that could be the state party is the State, not the NGOs because NGOs have no legal standing in the proceedings and not one subject of international law.
"So, Indonesian government could ignore the verdict . Not to be confused with the results of PCA to judge the case of the South China Sea. The results of PCA final and legally binding. And PCA recognized in the international justice system," he said.
For known, IPT has said the Indonesian government must be held responsible for the human rights violations that have happened in the country in 1965.
Coordinating Minister for Political, Security and Legal Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan said, IPT is a mere non-governmental organization and so it is not appropriate to equalize it with the government.
"That does make sense to me. It is a mere NGO. How can an NGO be my counterpart? Think of it," he said while commenting on the issue at his office, Thursday (21/7).
The minister also doubted the truth of the information contained in IPTs decision that Indonesia had committed crimes against humanity in 1965-1966, including the killing of 400,000 to 500,000 members, alleged members of the then Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and supporters of President Soekarno and members of the radial Indonesia Nationalist Party (PNI) and their families.
He said the figures were not tabulated, based upon accurate data, but from a mere report filed by a fact-finding team led by then retired Major General Sumarno before President Soekarno.
Luhut pointed out that he knew it from retired Lieutenant General Sintong Pandjaitan, who was in charge of leading the armys special force Kopassus (RPKAD) in Pati, Central Java, in 1965.
"Sumarno mentioned 75,000, but then Bung Karno (President Soekarno) argued how could the number be that small? No, it is wrong. It has to be four times that. So, it comes to 400,000. Thats what he (Sumarno) said then. Of course we understand that the situation then is not as transparent as it is now," Luhut said.
He said the Indonesian government would not consider IPTs decision because it was made based merely on assumptions.
READ MORE: Indonesia Responsible for and Guilty... US, UK and Australia Were Complicit
Meanwhile, Zaki Mubarok, International political observer said, People's tribunal simply aim to create excitement without having a clear legal basis on its decision.
"There are several similar cases were 'judged' by the 'People's Tribunal', but because they do not have clarity in the continuation of his decision, then it just faded away. 'Decision' they are very biased and one-sided because only hear the events in 1965 without seeing or 'judge' in the previous year," said this PhD Student and UN DOALOS Fellow-Holder of Master of International Law and International Relations of UNSW.
He added, IPT is not contained in the official international court system and the nature of 'judgment' it is a recommendation.
"How could there be a system of so-called 'trial' but the nature of its recommendation decision. The Hague there is no mention as though his position with the International court of justice or ICJ based in The Hague. Though completely different, not to be falsified by the ICJ that are legally binding in its award," he said.
One of the forum could hear was the International Criminal court. But Indonesia decided not to become a party or a State Party to the convention. In international law, there is the traditional nature of his still attached, namely the need for consent to be bound to participate in a convention that the decision of its binding and that could be the state party is the State, not the NGOs because NGOs have no legal standing in the proceedings and not one subject of international law.
"So, Indonesian government could ignore the verdict . Not to be confused with the results of PCA to judge the case of the South China Sea. The results of PCA final and legally binding. And PCA recognized in the international justice system," he said.
(rnz)
