Free Isak Sattu Sentence In Paniai Case, Komnas HAM: Investigation And Prosecution Considered Not Transparent

Illustration of Komnas HAM. (Between)

The National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) issued a number of notes after the Makassar District Court (PN) panel of judges acquitted the defendant Major Inf. Purn. Isak Sattu in the alleged violation of Paniai's heavy human rights.

"First, the investigation and prosecution are considered not transparent," said Deputy Head of External Affairs Abdul Haris Semdawai in Jakarta, Thursday, December 8, as quoted by Antara.

Abdul Haris assessed that the investigation and prosecution of heavy human rights cases in December 2014 did not involve witnesses and victims. As a result, it creates a sense of distrust in the ongoing legal process.

"This is something we think is concerning," said Abdul Haris.

Not only that, he continued, the evidence was also considered by Komnas HAM to be not running optimally. The reason is that the active participation of witnesses, victims, and family parties was also not present at the trial which took place at the Makassar District Court.

"Indeed, only the TNI and Polri were present at the trial," said the chairman of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) for the 2013-2018 period.

Meanwhile, civil society witnesses who saw the incident firsthand were not presented at the trial. Even if there is, he said, the minutes of examination (BAP) were only read out.

It did not stop there, another note from Komnas HAM was the matter of determining the sole perpetrator from the incident that killed four civilians and about 21 other people were injured. In fact, previously there were several field commanders and perpetrators who were recommended to be prosecuted.

"However, it turned out that only one was named a suspect. That from the start had raised concerns and today it was proven by the verdict that the defendant was not legally and convincingly proven to have committed serious human rights violations," he said.

However, he said, the court's decision at least proved that there had indeed been cases of gross human rights violations. However, what cannot be proven is the party responsible.