Pansus Penghilangan Paksa DPR

Nasib Orang-orang Hilang di Parlemen
[Mugiyanto]

Pada Oktober tahun lalu, dahaga masyarakat akan penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia sedikit mendapatkan harapan ketika Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat menghidupkan kembali Panitia Khusus DPR untuk kasus penculikan para aktivis tahun 1997-1998 (Pansus Orang Hilang). Pansus yang sebenarnya sudah terbentuk sejak Februari 2007 itu merencanakan untuk melanjutkan kerja-kerjanya yang berhenti dengan meminta keterangan ke sejumlah pihak.

Di antara pihak-pihak yang hendak diperiksa untuk dimintai keterangannya adalah pemerintah, korban, keluarga korban, Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat pendamping dan pihak-pihak yang diduga terlibat. Pemeriksaan atas pihak terakhir inilah yang kemudian menimbulkan polemik dan kontroversi. Mereka yang dimaksud adalah Wiranto, Prabowo Subianto, Sutiyoso dan Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Beberapa kalangan menilai rencana pansus ini lebih merupakan sebuah langkah politik daripada sebuah upaya untuk menegakkan hak asasi manusia. Bahkan ada juga pihak yang mencurigai pansus sebagai manuver Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP) untuk menjegal rival-rivalnya dalam pemilihan umum nanti dengan menyabet posisi ketua pansus. Namun bagi keluarga korban, perdebatan soal motivasi dan kepentingan politik di balik rencana kerja pansus bukanlah hal yang penting, selama pekerjaan dia bisa berujung pada ditemukannya kejelasan mengenai nasib dan keberadaan orang-orang yang dihilangkan.

Menanggapi polemik dan kontroversi tersebut, ketua pansus bergeming. Pansus tetap melakukan pemeriksaan yang dimulai dengan dengar pendapat dengan beberapa korban, keluarga korban dan LSM pendamping. Kepada beberapa orang yang diduga terlibat, surat pemanggilan pemeriksaan pun sudah dilayangkan November lalu.

Sampai akhir tahun 2008, ketika DPR memasuki masa reses (kunjungan ke daerah-daerah), tak ada lagi kabar berita tentang pansus itu. Dalam kesempatan pemeriksaan korban, keluarga korban dan pendamping, ketua pansus mengatakan, pansus akan menyelesaikan penanganan kasus orang hilang ini sebelum masa kerjanya selesai. Ini berarti, sebelum September 2009, Pansus diasumsikan telah memberikan rekomendasinya kepada presiden untuk membentuk Pengadilan HAM Ad Hoc.

Tanggungjawab Negara
Masa persidangan III DPR tahun 2009 sudah dimulai sejak 19 Januari dan secara keseluruhan, sampai dengan 30 September tahun ini, DPR hanya memiliki 126 hari kerja. Walaupun singkat, waktu tersebut dipastikan cukup karena pansus tidak perlu melakukan penyelidikan, hanya tinggal meminta keterangan beberapa pihak sebelum akhirnya merekomendasikan presiden untuk membentuk pengadilan HAM Ad Hoc. Namun demikian, bila janji ketua pansus tidak sekadar diucapkan untuk dilanggar, maka mustinya sekaranglah saatnya pansus mulai bekerja lagi.

Keterbatasan waktu adalah satu hal, tetapi etika moral, sosial dan politik serta tanggung jawab konstitusional negara untuk segera memberikan keadilan pada warganya adalah hal yang jauh lebih substansial. Seorang bangsawan dan negarawan Inggris, William Gladstone pernah mengatakan justice delayed is justice denied, dalam bahasa Indoneia bermakna; keadilan yang tak segera diberikan sama saja dengan pengingkaran atas keadilan itu sendiri. Di sanalah letak kewajiban negara, dimana DPR adalah salah satu unsur untuk segera menangani kasus penghilangan paksa (orang hilang) ini.

Agenda Pemilu dan Hak Asasi Manusia
Agenda nasional pemilu 2009 bukanlah satu-satunya agenda nasional yang karenanya agenda lain bisa dikesampingkan atau ditunda pemenuhannya. Sebagaimana hak-hak warga negara atas pangan, papan, pekerjaan, kesehatan, pendidikan, rasa aman dan sebagainya, hak warga negara atas perlindungan hak asasi manusia dan keadilan juga harus dipenuhi oleh pemerintah dan negara.

Lebih dari itu, pemenuhan hak-hak warga masyarakat tersebut justru akan memberi isi, makna dan bahkan akan menentukan kualitas dan hasil pemilu yang akan datang. Oleh karena itu, usulan agar Pansus Orang Hilang menyerahkan penanganan kasus tersebut pada DPR hasil Pemilu 2009 nanti adalah usulan tidak bertanggung jawab.

Agenda pemilu dan hak asasi manusia menjadi semakin kental relevansi dan keterkaitannya satu sama lain karena pemerintah dan DPR hasil pemilu 2009 masih harus menyelesaikan salah satu tanggung jawab besar masa transisi yaitu penanganan berbagai kasus-kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia masa lalu dan pemenuhan hak-hak para korban.

Keengganan dan kelambatan pemerintah sebelumnya dalam menangani pelanggaran hak asasi manusia masa lalu menjadikan tanggung jawab ini terus terbebankan kepada pemerintah selanjutnya. Namun tanggung jawab ini harus diambil, karena ia menjadi prasyarat keberhasilan masa transisi menuju demokrasi dan kemajuan ekonomi (Nelson Mandela, Transitional Justice; How Emerging Democracies Recon with Former Regimes, 1995).

Hak Asasi Manusia dan Pansus yang Hilang
Kalau kita mengamati secara serius masa hiruk-pikuk kampanye para calon legislatif (caleg) dan calon presiden/wakil presiden selama beberapa bulan terakhir, isu hak asasi manusia nyaris tidak pernah terdengar. Sangat sedikit, atau bahkan tidak ada sama sekali yang secara jelas berbicara tentang apa yang akan mereka lakukan terhadap berbagai kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang ada di Indonesia.

Dari perkembangan dan fenomena yang muncul akhir-akhir ini, kecenderungan yang muncul di kalangan para kandidat yang mencalonkan diri adalah membungkus rapat-rapat keborokan-keborokan mereka di bidang hak asasi manusia (political wrapping) dengan membangun pencitraan politik yang populis (popular political imaging) pada masyarakat. Sehingga kesan yang muncul adalah bahwa kita tidak memiliki masalah dengan hak asasi manusia atau hak asasi manusia tidaklah penting.

Ribuan korban konflik di Aceh dan Papua serta ribuan yang lain dari berbagai kasus yang terjadi sejak tahun 1965 hingga turunnya Orde Baru seperti menjadi angka-angka mati yang tak berarti. Padahal setiap Kamis sore, mereka masih selalu menagih janji keadilan pemerintah di depan istana presiden.

Iklan-iklan politik seperti ini tidak hanya membodohi dan membohongi rakyat, tetapi juga berbahaya bagi bangsa ke depan karena nilai yang dibangun berseberangan dengan arus besar bangsa-bangsa di dunia yang sedang berjuang untuk menghapuskan impunitas dan menegakkan hak asasi manusia.

Akan lebih bertanggung jawab dan visioner bila para calon presiden dan wakil presiden beserta calon legislatif yang sedang berkampanye juga mengintegrasikan hak asasi manusia sebagai bagian integral dari program-program yang mereka tawarkan bila mereka terpilih.

Bagi Pansus Orang Hilang DPR, kinilah saatnya untuk membuktikan bahwa pansus dibentuk dengan tujuan untuk membuka jalan penyelesaian kasus orang hilang sebagaimana direkomendasikan oleh Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia atau Komnas HAM pada November 2006. Pekerjaan pansus ini juga bisa dijadikan sebagai usaha untuk memperbaiki citra DPR yang sampai saat ini sedang berada di titik nadir yang rendah karena berbagai skandal korupsi. Bagi masyarakat, pansus juga bisa dijadikan ukuran kinerja para anggota DPR saat ini, apakah mereka masih layak untuk dipilih kembali?

Mugiyanto, ketua IKOHI dan Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD).

Tulisan di muat pertama di www.mediabersama.com dan www.vivanews.com

International Week of the Disappeared

ASIAN FEDERATION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES (AFAD)
Rooms 31-=311 Philippine Social Science Center Bldg. Commonwealth Ave.,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, Telefax: 00-63-2-4546759; Telephone: 00-63-2-9274594
Website: http://www.afad-online.org
===================================================================

Enforced Disappearance is Anti-Life…
No to Untold Sufferings….
Sign and Ratify the UN Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance!

The Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances joins all families of the disappeared persons around the world in the commemoration of the International Week of the Disappeared from May 26 to June 1. This week of the desaparecidos was first commemorated by the Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared-Detainees (FEDEFAM) more than a couple of decades ago.

In the observance of this occasion, AFAD affirms the right of every person to life, liberty and dignity and therefore, the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance. The essential value of one's existence is to live freely without discrimination, prejudices and harm. Enforced disappearance does not only violate these basic human rights by physically removing a person from the protection of the law but it also denies the families of the disappeared persons the right to know the truth and to seek justice.

Enforced disappearance is a global phenomenon. It has been occurring everywhere - down the street, in the barrios, in the upland, on the highway, in the woods, in the desert, at the border, and even in the household. In many points of the globe, there are people who are made to disappear for exercising their rights and for opposing against human rights violations. It is done mostly in the context of widespread and systematic way under a climate of impunity where the perpetrators are free to do what they want without accountability. Asia is now considered the graveyard of the desaparecidos for having submitted the most number of cases to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in recent years.

The disappearance of every person brings terrible sorrows and sufferings to his or her family. The long and agonizing search for the victims' whereabouts usually ends in fruitless undertaking. The normal life that their families used to have is now shattered by emotional and psychological devastation, economic dislocation, uncertainty… Their lives are even at risk for having to undergo the same fate that their loved ones succumbed for seeking truth, justice, redress and reparation.

But the families of the disappeared refuse to give in to fear. They know that their disappeared loved ones' only hope to return alive and to find truth and justice is for them to be strong and united. Their faith is as clear as the light at the end of the tunnel and as bright as the rainbow after every rain.

The adoption of International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Disappearance by the United Nations General Assembly on the 20th of December 2006 sparked a ray of hope for the families of the disappeared. To date, however, only four countries in Asia have affixed their signatures to the Convention. Asia, being the continent which submitted a huge number of cases to the United Nations needs the ratification by its governments of this new treaty and to pass domestic laws criminalizing enforced disappearance.

The International Week of the Disappeared is an expression of solidarity of all families of desaparecidos of the world. It is a celebration of life to honor the historical memory of those who have given their lives for the ransom of many. It is a renewal of commitment of the families of the disappeared and all human rights advocates to keep on the struggle against enforced disappearances and impunity until the dawning of the day when there are no more desaparecidos.

On this occasion, families of the disappeared call for an end to their untold sufferings brought about by this anti-life instrument used to silence their beloved desaparecidos. Despite their physical absence, the desaparecidos refuse to be silenced. For indeed, the perpetrators have miserably failed to silence them by physically eliminating their victims. As we commemorate the International Week of the Disappeared, we reiterate that the desaparecidos remain ever present in our minds and hearts.

Enforced disappearance is anti-life…
No to untold sufferings…
Ratify the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance!


Signed:


MUGIYANTO MARY AILEEN D. BACALSO
Chairperson Secretary-General

From the Voice of Human Rights Media
15 Mei 2008 - 13:00 WIB

10 Tahun Reformasi

Mengenang Para Martir Perubahan

Mugiyanto*

SETIAP kali diwawancarai, Suyatno selalu menjelaskan, "kalau tidak karena peristiwa yang menimpa Suyat pada awal tahun 1998, pasti tidak akan ada perubahan yang menempatkan mereka pada posisi seperti yang mereka nikmati saat ini. Tapi sayangnya, mereka seperti lupa itu semua". Begitu Suyatno menyampaikan kekecewaannya kepada para pemimpin negeri yang telah silih berganti sejak Soeharto lengser sepuluh tahun yang lalu. Suyatno patut kecewa karena tak satupun Presiden yang mempedulikan nasib dirinya dan ribuan keluarga korban pelanggaran hak asasi manusia lainnya.

Suyatno adalah kakak kandung Suyat, korban penculikan aktivis awal tahun 1998 di Solo, Jawa Tengah. Suyatno sempat ditangkap dan disiksa beberapa hari oleh sekelompok penculik yang mencari Suyat, hanya karena ia kakak Suyat yang wajahnya mirip Suyat. Sementara Suyat, adalah korban penculikan yang sampai hari ini tidak pernah pulang dan tidak diketahui nasib dan keberadaannya.

Krisis dan Tumbuhnya Gerakan Rakyat
Tidak bisa disangkal, bahwa salah satu penyebab lengsernya Soeharto adalah terjadinya krisis ekonomi sejak pertengahan tahun 1997. Krisis ini memang tidak hanya memukul Indonesia, melainkan juga Thailand, Korea Selatan, dan beberapa negara Asia lainnya. Akan tetapi, Indonesia mengalami dampak jauh lebih serius dibandingkan negara-negara tersebut. Hal ini terjadi karena langkah-langkah yang diambil Soeharto memperburuk krisis itu sendiri (Fadli Zon, 2004).

Karena sangat buruknya krisis ini, nilai tukar rupiah terhadap Dolar Amerika sempat anjlog pada nilai terendah, yaitu mencapai Rp 17.000 per Dolar Amerika pada tanggal 22 Januari 1998. Sebelum krisis, nilai tukar rupiah terhadap dollar adalah Rp 2.500 per Dolar Amerika. Hancurnya nilai tukar rupiah ini kemudian menimbulkan efek domino berupa membumbungnya harga-harga kebutuhan pokok, bangkrutnya industri dan terjadinya pemutusan hubungan kerja secara massal, juga terjadinya capital flight.

Dalam situasi yang demikian, gejolak sosial adalah keniscayaan. Hampir setiap hari sejak pertengahan tahun 1997, media selalu memberitakan adanya aksi-aksi protes masyarakat mengecam ketidakmampuan pemerintah dan menuntut diturunkannya harga-harga kebutuhan pokok (sembako). Semua sektor masyarakat bergerak, terutama mereka yang tinggal di perkotaan. Kelompok ibu-ibu juga turut berteriak-teriak di jalan menuntut diturunkannya harga susu bayi yang harganya tak lagi terjangkau. Di pusat-pusat perbelanjaan, bank, pom bensin, juga terjadi rush dan antri panjang untuk memperebutkan barang yang jumlahnya sedikit namun harganya mahal.

Ketika krisis ekonomi semakin memburuk, aksi-aksi kriminalitas dalam bentuk pencurian dan penjarahan bahan-bahan kebutuhan pokok juga terjadi di beberapa tempat. Mulai dari aksi pencurian jagung dan singkong milik tetangga, sampai pengutilan susu dan makanan bayi di supermarket. Semuanya bermotif ekonomi, hanya untuk bertahan hidup (survival).

Gerakan prodemokrasi yang dipelopori mahasiswa sejak awal tahun 1990-an seperti mendapatkan momentum kebangkitannya. Dari sebuah awal mengusung isu-isu kampus dan nasional yang nampaknya jauh dari kepentingan dan problema masyarakat seperti tuntutan kebebasan akademik di kampus, pencabutan dwi fungsi ABRI dan paket 5 Undang-Undang Politik tahun 1985 dan lain-lain, mahasiswa lalu turut menyuarakan tuntutan diturunkannya harga-harga, dan tuntutan pemberantasan korupsi, kolusi dan nepotisme (KKN) yang waktu itu diangap sebagai penyebab terjadinya kehancuran ekonomi Indonesia.

Aksi-aksi demonstrasi yang dipelopori mahasiswa dengan tuntutan penurunan harga dan pemberantasan KKN ini kemudian meluas di hampir seluruh kota yang ada universitasnya di Indonesia. Gerakan mahasiswa terus mendapatkan momentumnya untuk meluas tidak hanya dalam cakupan geografis, tetapi juga kualitas tuntutannya. Dari penurunan harga dan pemberantasan KKN, tuntutan mahasiswa lalu menjadi tuntutan yang struktural, yaitu REFORMASI yang secara umum diartikan sebagai tuntutan adanya perubahan struktur kekuasaan dari Orde Baru Soeharto ke struktur kekuasan yang baru yang bersih dari KKN dan diharapkan mampu mengatasi krisis ekonomi.

Para Martir
Ketika gerakan pro demokrasi menemukan momentumnya saat krisis ekonomi terjadi, serangkaian represi juga dilancarkan oleh rejim Orde Baru terhadap suara-suara kritis. Dedi Hamdun, Noval Alkatiri, Ismail, Sonny dan Yani Afri adalah aktivis PPP dan PDI yang menjadi korban penculikan di Jakarta ketika muncul fenomena koalisi akar rumput Mega-Bintang antara pendukung PPP dan PDI melawan Golkar pada saat kampanye pemilu 1997. Sampai hari ini, 5 orang yang disebut di atas belum diketahui rimbanya.

Para aktivis Mega-Bintang yang dihilangkan ini adalah ancaman bagi dominasi dan kemenangan Golkar pada Pemilu 1997 dan "kesuksesan" agenda besar Orde Baru yang hendak menjadikan Soeharto untuk menjadi penguasa untuk kesekian kalinya. Bila fenomena Mega-Bintang tidak dihentikan, suara PPP dan PDI dikhawatirkan Golkar akan naik, karena mereka menjadi representasi suara arus bawah yang selama tiga dekade terakhir dipinggirkan dan diambangkan politik dan suaranya oleh kebijakan Orde Baru. Menghilangkan mereka menjadi pilihan model represi yang dipakai Orde Baru saat itu.

Lalu pada awal tahun 1998, mesin represi Orde baru bekerja lagi. Tindakan penangkapan dan penculikan dilakukan terhadap aktivis-aktivis pro demokrasi yang diduga akan menggangu Sidang Umum MPR Maret 1998 yang mengagendakan pemilihan kembali Soeharto sebagai presiden untuk yang ke-7 kalinya. Mereka yang menjadi korban pada peristiwa penculikan periode ini antara lain adalah aktivis Aldera, LBH Nusantara, PDI Megawati, Partai Rakyat Demokratik (PRD) dan Solidaritas Mahasiswa Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (SMID). Ada 14 korban yang diculik pada periode ini. Dari 14 orang tersebut, 9 orang yang telah dilepaskan termasuk saya, seorang yang kemudian diketemukan meninggal (Gilang), dan 4 orang yang sampai hari ini tidak diketahui nasib dan keberadaannya. Mereka ini adalah Wiji Thukul, Petrus Bimo Anugerah, Suyat dan Herman Hendrawan.

Sebelum diculik, selain aktif di Aliansi Demokrasi Rakyat (Aldera), Pius Lustrilanang juga aktif di Solidaritas untuk Amin dan Mega (SIAGA), sebuah jaringan untuk mendukung Amin Rais dan Megawati menjadi calon presiden untuk menantang Soeharto. Pada masa itu, mencalonkan orang untuk menjadi Presiden diluar Soeharto adalah tindakan yang bisa dikategorikan subversi. Sementara Desmond Junaedi Mahesa adalah aktivis LBH Nusantara Bandung banyak melakukan advokasi kasus-kasus rakyat bidang pertanahan. Sedangkan Haryanto Taslam adalah Sekjend. DPD PDI DKI Jakarta yang punya hubungan dan pengaruh sangat kuat dengan basis massa PDI dan gerakan prodemokrasi di Jakarta. Taslam diangap berbahaya karena ia punya kemampuan untuk memobilisasi massa dalam jumah besar.

Lalu bagaimana dengan para aktivis PRD, SMID dan organisasi-organisasi lain yang dekat dengannya, sehingga mereka menjadi target utama pemculikan?Sejak awal 1990-an, organisasi-organisasi yang kemudian mendirikan PRD seperti Solidaritas Mahasiswa Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (SMID), Pusat perjuangan Buruh Indonesia (PPBI), Serikat Tani Nasional (STN), Jaker (Jeringan Kerja Kesenian Rakyat) dan Serikat Rakyat Indonesia (SRI) adalah organisasi-organisasi yang giat mengorganisir kekuatan rakyat untuk secara keras mengkritisi dan menentang kebijakan Orde Baru. Mereka mengidentifikasi bahwa perubahan fundamental harus dilakukan di Indonesia, dengan pertama-tama mencabut dan menganti beberapa undang-undang dan konsep mendasar kebangsaan sebagai syarat menuju Indonesia yang demokratis dan berkeadilan sosial.

Beberapa diantaranya adalah, pencabutan Dwi Fungsi ABRI dengan mengembalikan militer ke barak, memisahkan kepolisian dari militer, dan membubarkan struktur teritorial ABRI seperti Komando Daerah Militer (Kodam), Komando Distrik Militer (Kodim), Komando Rayon Militer (Koramil) dan Badan Pembina Desa (Babinsa). Mereka juga menuntut pencabutan paket 5 Undang-Undang Politik tahun 1985 yang hanya mengijinkan adanya 3 partai politik, menjadikan Pancasila sebagai satu-satunya dasar organisasi, adanya wadah tunggal bagi setiap sentir masyarakat dan memungkinkan adanya wakil militer di Parlemen. PRD menuntut adanya sistem multipartai di Indonesia dan kebebasan berorganiasi di Indonesia.

Sementara organisasi-organisasi sektoral yang bergabung menjadi organisasi massanya menuntut perubahan fundamental bidang pertanian dan pertanahan, perburuhan, pendidikan, kebudayaan dan penanganan kaum miskin perkotaan. PRD juga sangat tegas mendukung hak demokratik rakyat Timor Lorosae untuk menentukan nasibnya sendiri melalui referéndum.Di bidang ekonomi, PRD waktu itu mengecam keras kebijakan yang berorientasi pasar bebas dan takluk pada dikte-dikte IMF dan Bank Dunia yang nyata-nyata merugikan kepentingan masyarakat Indonesia.

Aktivis PRD, SMID, Jaker dan sebagainya dianggap berbahaya karena tuntutannya yang langsung menghunjam ke tulang punggung penopang (backbone) kekuaaan Orde Baru.Sebelum melakukan penculikan terhadap para aktivis PRD, pada peristiwa Sabtu Kelabu 27 Juli 1996, yaitu penyerangan kantor PDI Megawati di Jl. Diponegor Jakarta yang berakibat terjadinya kerusuhan massa, PRD dianggap sebagai biangkerok (mastermind) dan lebih dari itu, PRD dianggap sebagai organsasi komunis yang baru. Sampai 1998, aktivis-aktivis PRD adalah musuh-musuh berbahaya bagi rejim Orde Baru yang musti dilenyapkan.

Mesin represi Orde Baru tidak juga berhenti menindas gerakan prodemokrasi. Ratusan pendukung PDI Megawati yang mengadakan pawai menuntut penurunan harga di Jakarta Selatan di cegat aparat polisi dan tentara lalu semuanya dikirim ke rumah tahanan Polda Metrojaya. Di kota-kota besar seperti Bogor, Jogjakarta, Makassar, Medan, Surabaya, dan Bandung, demonstrasi mahasiswa dihadapi pentungan, gas air mata, penjara bahkan timah panas. Lalu tewaslah antara lain Moses Gatutkaca di Jogjakarta dan puluhan orang tak bernama lainnya.

Puncaknya adalah ketika 5 orang mahasiswa Trisakti, Jakarta ditembak mati oleh para sniper ketika mereka menggelar aksi demonstrasi di halaman kampus pada tanggal 12 Mei 1998. Elang Mulya Lesmana, Hafidin Royan, Hendriawan Sie dan Hery Hartanto adalah para mahasiswa yang akhirnya gugur bersimbah darah karena diterjang peluru panas itu. Peristiwa inilah yang kemudian menyulut kemarahan publik keesokan harinya hingga tiga hari beturut-turut di Jakarta dan kota -kota besar lainnya.

Tanggal 13, 14 dan 15 Mei 1998, Jakarta luluh lantak. Ribuan orang tumpah ruah ke jalan, menghancurkan apa yang bisa dihancurkan. Mereka merusak dan membakar pertokoan, fasilitas publik dan simbol-simbol kekuasaan Orde Baru. Namun, selalu saja ada yang mengambil keuntungan ditengah histeria massa ini. Massa yang beringas tiba-tiba seperti dikomando menjarah pertokoan, mall dan pasar swalayan. Massa juga menjadikan etnis Tionghoa sebagai sasaran. Mereka menjarah dan membakar harta milik keturunan Tionghoa, dan bahkan melakkan penyerangan fisik. Beberapa LSM bahkan menyebutkan adanya kekerasan seksual serius terhadap perempuan etnis Tionghoa.Tim Relawan Untuk Kemanusiaan (TRuK), Solidaritas Nusa Bangsa (SNB), Tim Gabungan Pencari Fakta (TGPF) dan Komnas HAM menyebutkan ribuan orang menjadi korban selama 3 hari kerusuhan yang terjadi di Jakarta dan meluas ke beberapa kota besar seperti Solo, Macasar dan Medan ini. Ribuan orang tanpa nama yang menjadi korban ini hilang tanpa jejak, mati terbakar, mengalami aneka kekerasan seksual dan sebagainya.Mereka semua adalah para martir, yang karena pengorbanannya, baik disadari atau tidak, telah mengantarkan kekuasaan formal Orde Baru pada akhir keberadaannya. Yaitu ketika akhirnya pada tanggal 21 Mei 1998 Soeharto terpaksa mengumumkan pengunduran dirinya sebagai presiden Republik Indonesia.

Para martir itu telah membuka jalan perubahan dan darah serta jiwanya telah menjadi penyubur bagi tumbuhnya demokrasi Indonesia.

Penyangkalan
NegaraKembali ke tesis sederhana Suyatno, kayak Suyat itu, 'apakah pemerintah saat ini telah memberikan para martir itu tempat yang layak? Apakah para martir itu telah mendapatkan apa yang menjadi hak mereka, di Indonesia yang baru ini?'

Suyatno sudah memberikan jawabannya. Yaitu bahwa ia kecewa.

Mereka yang hilang sampai saat ini tidak diketahui rimbanya. Suyatno masih tidak mengetahui nasib dan keberadaan nasib Suyat adiknya. Demikian juga keluarga sorban yang lain yang masih dalam 10 tahun penantian ketidakpastian. Hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM yang seharusnya disidik oleh Jaksa Agung juga malah berkasnya dikembalikan ke penyelidik, sehingga proses penanganan hukum sama sekali tidak maju.

Lima korban peristiwa penembakan di kampus Trisakti memang telah diberi penghargaan gelar sebagai pahlawan reformasi oleh Presiden. Tetapi apakah itu bisa mengganti 5 nyawa yang melayang, terlebih lagi ketika mereka yang menembak sama sekali tidak dimintai pertanggungjawaban? Hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM juga mengalami perlakuan yang sama oleh Jaksa Agung, dikembalikan ke penyelidik.Lalu bagaimana dengan ribuan korban peristiwa kerusuhan 13 - 15 Mei 1998? Banyak dari mereka yang masih dalam ketidakpastian, karena tidak menemukan jasad keluarga yang hilang. Para keluarga juga masih menghadapi cap negatif dan stigma bahwa sanak saudara mereka yang hilang dan mati terbakar adalah penjarah. Belum lagi yang masih mengalami trauma akibat kekerasan seksual dan perkosaan.

Sama dengan kasus penculikan dan penembakan mahasiswa, berkas penyelidikan Komnas HAM untuk kasus kerusuhan Mei 1998 ini juga dikembalikan oleh Jaksa Agung ke penyelidik Komnas HAM. Sebagaimana kasus penculikan aktivis, Jaksa Agung mengatakan bahwa mereka tidak bisa melakukan penyidikan sebelum pengadilan HAM ad hoc didirikan presiden.

Sungguh, ini adalah sebuah penyangkalan atas prinsip keadilan, terutama korban. Putusan Makhamah Konstitusi 21 Pebruari 2008 yang menyatakan bahwa DPR memerlukan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM dan Penyidikan Jaksa Agung untuk bisa merekomendasikan Presiden membentuk Pengadilan HAM ad hoc dianggap angin lalu oleh Jaksa Agung.Kondisi ini diperburuk lagi oleh ulah Menteri Pertahanan Juwono Sudarsono dan 600 purnawirawan TNI/Polri yang bersepakat untuk melawan kerja-kerja Komnas HAM untuk menyelidiki kasus-kasus pelangaran HAM masa lalu.

Hasilnya: impunitas. Ironisnya, Presiden Yudhoyono yang seharusnya menjadi palang penghalang impunitas, menjadi membisu. Publik masih ingat, ia pernah berjanji merehabilitasi korban peristiwa 1965. Ia juga pernah berjanji menuntaskan kasus pembunuhan Munir, dan menganggap janjinya sebagai "a test of our history".Bulan Maret lalu, kepada Kontras dan keluarga korban pelanggaran HAM yang diundangnya di Istana, Presiden Yudhoyono berjanji untuk memastikan bahwa semua pihak dan institusi negara akan patuh hukum dalam usaha penanganan kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM.

Kini, luka-luka akibat rangkaian catatan hitam dalam sejarah Republik ini masih terbuka menganga. Yang tinggal kemudian adalah berseraknya orang-orang yang menjadi korban. Mereka yang seharusnya menikmati buah manis hasil perjuangan para martir, oleh Negara dijadikan sebagai paria. Sudah 10 tahun kita menapaki alam perubahan itu. Haruskan urat kesabaran mereka para korban harus direntang lagi? Presiden Yudhoyono memiliki jalaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang akan terus mengusiknya sampai ke meja makan ini.***

Mugiyanto adalah penyintas (survivor) penculikan aktivis 1998, kini ketua Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia (IKOHI)

Patani

Makan malam di restoran di Bangkok, tempat ini konon pernah di singgahi Bill Clinton ketika. motto restoran ini "kalau itu bisa berenang kamu bisa memakannya" dan sangat beda dengan motto orang medan "Segala yang dilaut bisa dimakan kecuali kapal selam, itu juga karena keras" he he

Convention Against Disapeparances

E/CN.4/2005/WG.22/WP.1/REV.4
23 September 2005
(Translated from French)


INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS
FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE


Preamble

The States Parties to this Convention,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Recalling the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and all other relevant international instruments in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law,
Recalling the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992,
Aware of the extreme seriousness of enforced disappearance, which constitutes a crime and, in certain circumstances defined in international law, a crime against humanity,
Determined to prevent enforced disappearances and combat impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance,
Considering the right of any person not to be subjected to an enforced disappearance, the right of victims to justice and to reparation and,
Affirming the right to know the truth about circumstances of an enforced disappearance and the fate of the disappeared person, and the respect of the right to freedom to seek, receive and impart information to this end.
Have agreed as follows:



Article 1
1. No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.

Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, enforced disappearance is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

Article 3
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to investigate acts defined in article 2 committed by persons or groups of persons acting without the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible to justice.

Article 4
Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law.

Article 5
The widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity as defined in applicable international law and shall attract the consequences provided for under such applicable international law.

Article 6
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to hold criminally responsible at least:
(a) Any person who commits, orders, solicits or induces the commission of, attempts to commit, is an accomplice to or participates in an enforced disappearance;
(b) The superior who:
(i) Knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that subordinates under his or her effective authority and control were committing or about to commit a crime of enforced disappearance;
(ii) Exercised effective responsibility for and control over activities which were concerned with the crime of enforced disappearance; and
(iii) Failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of the enforced disappearance or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution;
(c) Subparagraph (b) above is without prejudice to the higher standards of responsibility applicable under relevant international law to a military commander or to a person effectively acting as a military commander.
2. No order or instruction from any public authority, civilian, military or other, may be invoked to justify an offence of enforced disappearance.

Article 7
1. Each State Party shall make the offence of enforced disappearance punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account its extreme seriousness.
2. Each State Party may establish:
(a) Mitigating circumstances, in particular for persons who, having been implicated in the commission of an enforced disappearance, effectively contribute to bringing the disappeared person forward alive or make it possible to clarify cases of enforced disappearance or to identify the perpetrators of an enforced disappearance;
(b) Without prejudice to other criminal procedures, aggravating circumstances, in particular in the event of the death of the disappeared person or the commission of an enforced disappearance in respect of pregnant women, minors, persons with disabilities or other particularly vulnerable persons.

Article 8
Without prejudice to article 5,
1. A State Party which applies a statute of limitations in respect of enforced disappearance shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the term of limitation for criminal proceedings:
(a) Is of long duration and is proportionate to the extreme seriousness of this offence;
(b) Commences from the moment when the offence of enforced disappearance ceases, taking into account its continuous nature.
2. Each State Party shall guarantee the right of victims of enforced disappearances to an effective remedy during the term of limitation.

Article 9
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance:
(a) When the offence is committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is one of its nationals;
(c) When the disappeared person is one of its nationals and the State Party considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance when the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction, unless it extradites or surrenders him or her to another State in accordance with its international obligations or surrenders him or her to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction it has recognized.
3. This Convention does not exclude any additional criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.

Article 10
1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of the information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed an offence of enforced disappearance is present shall take him or her into custody or take such other legal measures as are necessary to ensure his or her presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided for in the law of that State Party but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to ensure the person’s presence at criminal, surrender or extradition proceedings.
2. A State Party which has taken the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall immediately carry out a preliminary inquiry or investigations to establish the facts. It shall notify the States Parties referred to in article 9, paragraph 1, of the measures it has taken in pursuance of paragraph 1 of this article, including detention and the circumstances warranting detention, and the findings of its preliminary inquiry or its investigations, indicating whether it intends to exercise its jurisdiction.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he or she is a national, or, if he or she is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he or she usually resides.

Article 11
1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed an offence of enforced disappearance is found shall, if it does not extradite that person or surrender him or her to another State in accordance with its international obligations or surrender him or her to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction it has recognized, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State Party. In the cases referred to in article 9, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 9, paragraph 1.
3. Any person against whom proceedings are brought in connection with an offence of enforced disappearance shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings. Any person tried for an offence of enforced disappearance shall benefit from a fair trail before a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law.

Article 12
1. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance has the right to report the facts to the competent authorities, which shall examine the allegation promptly and impartially and, where appropriate, undertake without delay a thorough and impartial investigation. Appropriate steps shall be taken, where necessary, to ensure that the complainant, witnesses, relatives of the disappeared person and their defence counsel, as well as persons participating in the investigation, are protected against all ill‑treatment or intimidation as a consequence of the complaint or any evidence given.
2. Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall undertake an investigation, even if there has been no formal complaint.
3. Each State Party shall ensure that the authorities referred to in paragraph 1:
(a) Have the necessary powers and resources to conduct the investigation effectively, including access to the documentation and other information relevant to their investigation;
(b) Have access, if necessary with the prior authorization of a judicial authority, which shall rule promptly on the matter, to any place of detention or any other place where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disappeared person may be present.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to prevent and sanction acts that hinder the conduct of the investigations. It shall ensure in particular that persons suspected of having committed an offence of enforced disappearance are not in a position to influence the progress of the investigations by means of pressure or acts of intimidation or reprisal aimed at the complainant, witnesses, relatives of the disappeared person or their defence counsel, or at persons participating in the investigation.

Article 13
1. For the purposes of extradition between States Parties, the offence of enforced disappearance shall not be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition based on such an offence may not be refused only on these grounds.
2. The offence of enforced disappearance shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties before the entry into force of this Convention.
3. States Parties undertake to include the offence of enforced disappearance as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty subsequently to be concluded between them.
4. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the necessary legal basis for extradition in respect of the offence of enforced disappearance.
5. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offence of enforced disappearance as an extraditable offence between themselves.
6. Extradition shall, in all cases, be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the requested State Party or by applicable extradition treaties, including, in particular, conditions relating to the minimum penalty requirement for extradition and the grounds upon which the requested State Party may refuse extradition or make it subject to certain conditions.
7. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s sex, race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, membership of a particular social group or political opinions, or that compliance with the request would cause harm to that person for any one of these reasons.

Article 14
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of mutual legal assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of an offence of enforced disappearance, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal that is necessary for the proceedings.
2. Such legal assistance shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the domestic law of the requested State Party or by applicable treaties on mutual legal assistance, including, in particular, the conditions in relation to the grounds upon which the requested State Party may refuse to grant mutual legal assistance or may make it subject to conditions.

Article 15
States Parties shall cooperate with each other and shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance with a view to assisting victims of enforced disappearance, and in searching for, locating and releasing disappeared persons and, in the event of death, in exhuming and identifying them and returning their remains.




Article 16
1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”), surrender or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to enforced disappearance.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights or of serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Article 17
1. No one shall be held in secret detention.
2. Without prejudice to other international obligations of the State Party with regard to the deprivation of liberty, each State Party shall, in its legislation:
(a) Establish the conditions under which orders of deprivation of liberty may be given;
(b) Indicate those authorities authorized to order the deprivation of liberty;
(c) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be held solely in officially recognized and supervised places of deprivation of liberty;
(d) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be authorized to communicate with and be visited by his or her family, counsel or any other person of his or her choice, subject only to the conditions established by law, or, if he or she is a foreigner, to communicate with his or her consular authorities, in accordance with applicable international law;
(e) Guarantee access by the competent and legally authorized authorities and institutions to the places where persons are deprived of liberty, if necessary with the prior authorisation of a judicial authority ;
(f) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty and, in the case of a suspected enforced disappearance, the person deprived of liberty not being able to exercise this right, that any person with a legitimate interest, such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representative or their counsel, in all circumstances, shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and order the release if that deprivation of liberty is not lawful.

3. Each State Party shall assure the compilation and maintenance of one or more up-to-date official registers and/or records of persons deprived of liberty, which shall be made promptly available, upon request, to any judicial or other competent authority or institution authorized for that purpose by the law of the State Party concerned or any relevant international legal instrument to which the State concerned is a party. The information contained therein shall include, as a minimum:
(a) The identity of the person deprived of liberty;
(b) The date, time and location where the person was deprived of liberty and the identity of the authority who deprived the person of liberty;
(c) The authority having decided the deprivation of liberty and the reasons for the deprivation of liberty;
(d) The authority controlling the deprivation of liberty;
(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty;
(f) Elements regarding the physical integrity of the person deprived of liberty;
(g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the human remains;
(h) The date and time of release or transfer to another place of detention, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer.

Article 18
1. Without prejudice to articles 19 and 20, each State Party shall guarantee to any person with a legitimate interest in this information, such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representative or their counsel, access to at least the following information:
(a) The authority having decided the deprivation of liberty;
(b) The date, time and location where the person was deprived of liberty and admitted to the place of deprivation of liberty;
(c) The authority controlling the deprivation of liberty;
(d) The whereabouts of the person deprived of liberty, including, in the event of a transfer to another place of deprivation of liberty, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer;
(e) The date, time and place of release;
(f) Elements regarding the physical integrity of the person deprived of liberty;
(g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the human remains.
2. Appropriate measures shall be taken, where necessary, to protect the persons referred to in paragraph 1, as well as persons participating in the investigation, from any ill-treatment, intimidation or sanction as a result of the search for information concerning a person deprived of liberty.

Article 19
1. Personal information, including medical and genetic data, which are collected and/or transmitted within the framework of the search for a disappeared person shall not be used or made available for purposes other than the search for the disappeared person. This is without prejudice to the use of such information in criminal proceedings relating to an offence of enforced disappearance or the exercise of the right to obtain reparation.
2. The collection, processing, use and storage of personal information, including medical and genetic data, shall not infringe or have the effect of infringing the human rights, fundamental freedoms or human dignity of an individual.

Article 20
1. Only when a person is under the protection of the law and the deprivation of liberty is subject to judicial control, can the right to information referred to in Article 18 be restricted and only on an exceptional basis, where strictly necessary and provided for by law, and if the transmission of the information would undermine the privacy or safety of the person, hinder a criminal investigation, or for other equivalent reasons in accordance with the law, and in conformity with applicable international law and with the objectives of this Convention. In no case shall there be restrictions to the right to information referred to in article 18 that could constitute conduct defined in article 2 or be in violation of article 17, paragraph 1.
2. Without prejudice to consideration of the lawfulness of the deprivation of a person’s liberty, States Parties shall guarantee to the persons referred to in article 18, paragraph 1 the right to a prompt and effective judicial remedy as a means of obtaining without delay information referred to in article 18, paragraph 1. This right to a remedy may not be suspended or restricted in any circumstances.
Article 21
Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that persons deprived of liberty are released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released. Each State Party shall also take the necessary measures to assure the physical integrity of such persons and their ability to exercise fully their rights at the time of release, without prejudice to any obligations to which such persons may be subject under national law.

Article 22
Without prejudice to article 6, each State Party shall take the necessary measures to prevent and impose sanctions for the following conduct:
(a) Delaying or obstructing the remedies referred to in article 17, paragraph 2 (f), and article 20, paragraph 2;
(b) Failure to record the deprivation of liberty of any person, or the recording of any information which the official responsible for the official register and/or records knew or should have known to be inaccurate;
(c) Refusal to provide information on the deprivation of liberty of a person, or the provision of inaccurate information, even though the legal requirements for providing such information have been met.

Article 23
1. Each State Party shall ensure that the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody or treatment of any person deprived of liberty includes the necessary education and information regarding the relevant provisions of this Convention, in order to:
(a) Prevent the involvement of such officials in enforced disappearances;
(b) Emphasize the importance of prevention and investigations in relation to enforced disappearances;
(c) Ensure that the urgent need to resolve cases of enforced disappearance is recognized.
2. Each State Party shall ensure that orders or instructions prescribing, authorizing or encouraging enforced disappearance are prohibited. Each State Party shall guarantee that a person who refuses to obey such an order will not be punished.
3. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the persons referred to in paragraph 1 who have reason to believe that an enforced disappearance has occurred or is planned report the matter to their superiors and, where necessary, to the appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.

Article 24
1. For the purposes of this Convention, “victim” means the disappeared person and any individual who has suffered harm as a direct result of an enforced disappearance.
2. Each victim has the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of the enforced disappearance, the progress and results of the investigation and the fate of the disappeared person. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures in this regard.
3. Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures to search for, locate and release disappeared persons and, in the event of death, to locate, respect and return their remains.
4. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victims of enforced disappearance have the right to obtain reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation.
5. The right to obtain reparation referred to in paragraph 4 covers material and psychological harm and, where appropriate, other means of reparation such as:
(a) Restitution;
(b) Rehabilitation;
(c) Satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation;
(d) Guarantees of non-repetition.
6. Without prejudice to the obligation to continue the investigation until the fate of the disappeared person has been clarified, each State Party shall take the appropriate steps with regard to the legal situation of the disappeared persons whose fate has not been clarified and that of their relatives, in fields such as social welfare, financial matters, family law and property rights.
7. Each State Party shall guarantee the right to form and participate freely in organizations and associations concerned with contributing to the establishment of the circumstances of enforced disappearances and the fate of disappeared persons, and with assistance to victims of enforced disappearance.

Article 25
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to prevent and punish under its criminal law:
(a) The wrongful removal of children who are subjected to enforced disappearance, children whose father, mother or legal guardian is subjected to enforced disappearance or children born during the captivity of a mother subjected to enforced disappearance;
(b) The falsification, concealment or destruction of documents attesting to the true identity of the children referred to in subparagraph (a).
2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to search for and identify the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and to return them to their families of origin, in accordance with legal procedures and applicable international agreements.
3. States Parties shall assist one another in searching for, identifying and locating the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a).
4. Given the need to protect the best interests of the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and their right to preserve, or to have re-established, their identity, including their nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law, States Parties which recognize a system of adoption or other form of placement of children shall have legal procedures in place to review the adoption or placement procedure, and, where appropriate, to annul any adoption or placement of children that stemmed from an enforced disappearance.
5. In all cases, and in particular in all matters relating to this article, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration, and a child who is capable of forming his or her own views shall have the right to express those views freely, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 26
1. A Committee on Enforced Disappearances (hereafter referred to as the Committee) shall be established to carry out the functions provided for under this Convention. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral character and recognised competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity and be independent and impartial. The members of the Committee shall be elected by the States Parties according to equitable geographical distribution. Consideration shall be given to the usefulness of the participation to the work of the Committee of persons having relevant legal experience and to balanced gender representation.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by the States Parties from among their nationals, at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations for this purpose. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
3. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit the nominations within three months. The Secretary General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the State Party which nominated each candidate. He/She shall submit this list to all States Parties.
4. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election once. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 2 of this article.
5. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his/her committee duties, the State Party which nominated him/her shall, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 1 of this article, appoint another candidate from among its nationals, to serve for the remainder of his/her term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
6. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure.
7. The Secretary General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary means, staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee. The Secretary General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee.

8. The members of the Committee shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
9. Each State Party shall co-operate with the Committee and assist its members in the fulfilment of their mandate, to the extent of the Committee’s functions that the State Party has accepted.

Article 27
A Conference of States Parties will take place at the earliest four years and at the latest six years following the entry into force of this Convention to evaluate the functioning of the Committee and to decide, in accordance with the procedure described in article 44, paragraph 2, whether it is appropriate to transfer to another body – without excluding any possibility - the monitoring of this Convention, in accordance with the functions defined in articles 28 to 36.

Article 28
1. In the framework of the competencies granted by this Convention, the Committee shall co-operate with all relevant organs, offices and specialized agencies and funds of the United Nations, with the treaty bodies instituted by international instruments, with the special procedures of the United Nations, and with the regional intergovernmental organizations or bodies concerned, as well as with all relevant State institutions, agencies or offices working toward the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances.
2. As it discharges its mandate, the Committee shall consult other treaty bodies instituted by relevant international human rights instruments, in particular the Human Rights Committee instituted by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with a view to ensuring the consistency of their respective observations and recommendations.

Article 29
1. Each State Party shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, a report on the measures taken to give effect to its obligations under this Convention, within two years after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall make this report available to all States Parties.
3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee, which shall issue such comments, observations or recommendations as it may deem appropriate. The comments, observations or recommendations shall be communicated to the State Party concerned, which may respond to them, on its own initiative or at the request of the Committee.
4. The Committee may also request further information from State Parties relevant to the implementation of this Convention.

Article 30
1. A request that a disappeared person should be sought and found on an urgent basis may be submitted to the Committee by relatives of the disappeared person or their legal representatives, their counsel or any person authorized by them, as well as by any other person having a legitimate interest.
2. If the Committee considers that the request for urgent action submitted in pursuance of paragraph 1:
(a) Is not manifestly unfounded;
(b) Does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission of such requests;
(c) Has already been duly presented to the competent bodies of the State Party concerned, such as investigative authorities, when this possibility exists;
(d) Is not incompatible with the provisions of this Convention; and
(e) The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement of the same nature;
it shall request the State Party concerned to provide it with information on the situation of the person concerned, within a time limit set by the Committee.
3. In the light of the information provided by the State Party concerned in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may transmit recommendations to the State Party including a request that the State Party take all appropriate measures, including interim measures, to locate and protect the person in accordance with this Convention and inform the Committee within a specified period of time, of measures taken, taking into account the urgency of the situation. The Committee shall inform the person submitting the urgent action request of its recommendations and of the information provided to it by the State as it becomes available.
4. The Committee shall continue its efforts to work with the State Party concerned for as long as the fate of the person sought remains unresolved. The person presenting the request shall be kept informed.

Article 31
1. A State Party may at the time of ratification or at any time afterwards declare that it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by this State Party of the provisions of this Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.
2. The Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible when:
(a) The communication is anonymous;
(b) The communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or is incompatible with the provisions of this Convention;
(c) The same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; or when
(d) All effective available domestic remedies have not been exhausted. This rule shall not apply where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged.
3. If the Committee considers that the communication meets the requirements set out in paragraph 2, it shall transmit the communication to the State Party concerned, requesting it to provide observations and comments within a time limit set by the Committee
4. At any time after the receipt of a communication and before a determination on the merits has been reached, the Committee may transmit to the State Party concerned for its urgent consideration a request that the State Party take such interim measures as may be necessary to avoid possible irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violation. Where the Committee exercises its discretion, this does not imply a determination on admissibility or on the merits of the communication.
5. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under the present article. It shall inform the author of the communication of the responses provided by the State Party concerned. When the Committee decides to terminate the procedure it shall communicate its views to the State Party and to the author of the communication.

Article 32
1. If the Committee receives reliable information indicating grave violations by a State Party of this Convention, it may, after consultation with the State Party concerned, request one or more of its members to undertake a visit and report back to it without delay.
2. The Committee shall notify the State Party concerned in writing of its intention to organise a visit, indicating the composition of the delegation and the purpose of the visit. The State Party shall answer the Committee within a reasonable time.
3. Upon a substantiated request by the State Party, the Committee may decide to postpone or cancel its visit.
4. If the State Party agrees to the visit, the Committee and the State Party concerned shall work together to define the modalities of the visit and the State Party shall provide the Committee with all the facilities needed for the successful completion of the visit.
5. Following its visit, the Committee shall communicate to the State Party concerned its observations and recommendations.

Article 33
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare that it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. The Committee shall not receive communications concerning a State Party which has not made such a declaration, nor communications from a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

Article 34
If the Committee receives information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that enforced disappearance is being practised on a widespread or systematic basis in the territory under the jurisdiction of a State Party, it may, after seeking from the State Party concerned all relevant information on the situation, urgently bring the matter to the attention of the General Assembly of the United Nations, through the Secretary General of the United Nations.


Article 35
1. The Committee shall have competence solely in respect of enforced disappearances which commenced after the entry into force of this Convention.
2. If a State becomes a party to this Convention after its entry into force, the obligations of that State vis-à-vis the Committee shall relate only to enforced disappearances which commenced after the entry into force of this Convention for the State concerned.

Article 36
1. The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
2. Before an observation on a State Party is published in the annual report, the State Party concerned shall be informed in advance and shall be given reasonable time to answer. This State Party may request the publication of its comments or observations in the report.

Article 37
Nothing in this Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance and which may be contained in :
a) the law of a State Party;
b) International law in force for that State.

Article 38
1. This Convention is open for signature by all Member States of the United Nations Organisation.
2. This Convention is subject to ratification by all Member States of the United Nations Organisation. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. This Convention is open to accession by all Member States of the United Nations Organisation. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.



Article 39
1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, this Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 40
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 38;
(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 39.

Article 41
The provisions of this Convention shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 42
1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organisation of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a declaration.
3. Any State Party having made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw this declaration by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 43
This Convention is without prejudice to the provisions of international humanitarian law, including the obligations of the High Contracting Parties to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the additional protocols thereto of 8 June 1977, or to the opportunity available to any State Party to authorize the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit places of detention in situations not covered by international humanitarian law.

Article 44
1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they indicate whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the States Parties favour such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations.
2. Any amendment adopted by a majority of two thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
3. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
4. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

Article 45
1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

KONVENSI ANTI PENGHILANGAN PAKSA DISAHKAN DEWAN HAM PBB

Kawan-kawan sekalian,

Akhirnya, Konvensi Anti Penghilangan Paksa yang telah diperjuangkan selama hampir 3 dekade disahkan secara aklamasi oleh Dewan HAM PBB pada pukul 21.00 WIB (pukul 16.00 Geneva).

Disahkannya Konvensi bukanlah akhir dari perjuangan kami, tetapi justru merupakan babak awal yang baru. Jalan masih panjang, termasuk untuk disahkan oleh Sidang Majelis Umum, Ratifikasi oleh Indonesia dsb. dan kami masih membutuhkan dukungan dan kerja sama dari kawan-kawan sekalian.

Salam hormat,

Mugiyanto

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

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Finally, the long struggled International Connvention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disapperances was adopted in consensus by the First Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 16.00 (Geneva Time or 21.00 WIB) on Thursday, June 29, 2006.

It is not the end of the struggles, but the beginning. There are still long ways to go, and we need still your supports and cooperations.

Mugiyanto
Chairperson of IKOHI

4.3 Jeju Massacre

The brutality of the suppression had been largely ignored by the government, but after civil rule was reinstated in the 1990s, the government made several case of apologies for the suppression, and efforts are being made to re-assess the scope of the incident and compensate the casualties.
Finnaly, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun Monday April 3, 2006 apologized for the massacre of civilians by government troops in 1948 in the southern island of Jeju.

It is first time for an incumbent president to make an official apology for the 1948 Cheju massacre, in which one-tenth of the inhabitants were killed as the government sought to quell an uprising led by a small group of communist insurgents.
At a memorial service for victims of the April 3 uprising, Roh apologized for what he called the illegal exercise of state power against citizens of Jeju during the suppression of an armed uprising. Roh offered a formal apology to the people of Jeju Island October 2003. Monday April 3, 2006 was the first time a president attended a memorial service for those killed. The Roh administration has set up a committee to investigate the Jeju incident and has held activities to restore honor to its victims. The opposition Grand National Party has denounced Roh's actions as political maneuvering aimed at discrediting the party and its leader, Park Geun-hye, who is the daughter of former President Park Chung-hee.

A Brief History of 4.3 Jeju Massacre
The Jeju massacre or the Cheju April 3 massacre happened as a result of suppression against armed rebellion in Jeju island, South Korea, during the period of April 3, 1948 to September 21, 1954.
A complex interplay of guerilla forces, youth groups, police, local and national army together with US presence lead to the situation.
The South Korean provisional government, right-wing under U.S. guidance, conducted nationwide campaigns to root out communists and their sympathizers, which also included some moderates. This caused severe instability around the nation, and in Jeju where communist influence was stronger, many resorted to armed resistance against government action.
According to Lt. Gen. Kim Ik Ruh who was in charge of the Korean army's ground troops on the island in the first half of 1948 when the unrest began, rebels were merely labeled communist for political reasons while their true motives and slogans had nothing to do with communism, much less had there been any influence from peninsular South Korean or even North Korean communists.
He claimed the unrest had been triggered by a brutal crackdown on the islanders' smuggling, a main source of the island's income. Torture, rape, killings, arbitrary incarcerations and abductions of locals accused of being smugglers, communists or of supporting the above by police and marauding anti-communist Korean youth from the North eventually triggered a successful simultaneous attack by angry locals on all police stations on the islands on April 3, 1948.
The rebel islanders not only freed relatives from police custody in the April 3 raids, but also seized arms before retreating, giving them the upper hand on the island until reinforcements would arrive from the mainland. The police had thus been stripped of both arms and ammunition. The Korean army's 9th regiment, which had not been targeted by the rebels, was armed, but had not been allowed any ammunition as the South Korean state had not yet been formed and the United States held authority over the island.

The government chose to mobilize the armed forces to suppress the situation and this caused many casualties. The rebellion continued after the end of Korean War. Estimates of deaths among the island's locals range from 30,000 to 80,000, between one in ten to one quarter of the population.

From various source