UNAIR ILSA Chapter semi-autonomous body held another discussion on international law, “Illusion Vol. 3: International Aspects of the Request for Review of the Law on Human Rights Courts,” on Saturday (11/3/2023). The speakers for the online discussion were the Dean of FH UNAIR, Iman Prihandono, S.H., M.H., LL.M., Ph.D., who is also a lecturer in international law and human rights expert from FH UNAIR, as well as a lecturer in constitutional law from Jember University, Rosita Indrayati, S.H., M.H.
Several human rights activists submitted a request to review Law Number 26 of 2000 concerning the Human Rights Court (Human Rights Court Act) to the Constitutional Court and have garnered public attention. The purpose of the request for review is to encourage the application of universal jurisdiction in Indonesia as stated in Article 5 of the Law on Human Rights Courts, which says that the Human Rights Courts in Indonesia have the authority to try gross human rights violations committed by Indonesian citizens outside the territory of Indonesia.
“This test is included in Case Number 89/PUU-XX/2022. So Article 5 of the Law on Human Rights Courts says that the Human Rights Court has the authority to try gross human rights violations committed outside Indonesia’s territorial borders by Indonesian citizens. The emphasis is on the phrase ‘by Indonesian citizens’. This phrase erodes the state’s responsibility to maintain world peace as mandated in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, this phrase also eliminates the principle of state responsibility for areas of human rights violations where the perpetrators of crimes involve the state, “explained Rosita.
Rosita continued by explaining that the request for review of the Human Rights Court Act originated from a case in Myanmar that could not be tried at the International Criminal Court because it did not sign the Rome Statute. A country controlled by a military junta can’t establish a human rights court to try its officials, so there is a legal vacuum in trying the perpetrators of gross human rights violations in the Asian region.
Furthermore, Iman added that gross human rights violations threaten peace and security. Indonesia, the largest country in Southeast Asia, can do something to encourage the complete fulfillment of human rights, including the case in Myanmar.
“If the phrase ‘Indonesian citizen’ is granted, we will apply universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. In international law, universal jurisdiction is possible. So, one of the applications of universal jurisdiction is extraterritorial jurisdiction. This extraterritorial jurisdiction allows us to apply Indonesian law in other countries. An example of universal jurisdiction is against slavery and human trafficking,” explained Iman.
In essence, the principle of universal jurisdiction cannot actually be applied in all cases, so it must still be returned to the laws of each country. The issue in Myanmar triggered a request for a review of the Human Rights Court Act. Even though an application for testing has been submitted several times, the test has yet to find a bright spot until now. Applying the principle of universal jurisdiction is also related to other regulations, such as the principle of impunity.
