The settlement of past human rights violations in Indonesia

Abstract Efforts to address past human rights violations in Indonesia have experienced both benefits and drawbacks, creating a dilemma for administrations including the governments headed by Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Joko Widodo. Attempts to utilize the court mechanism in resolving the East Timor and Tanjung Priok human rights violation cases were unsuccessful. Furthermore, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) produced little progress in reconciling. This article proposes alternative solutions to address the challenge of resolving past human rights violations in Indonesia. The main issue addressed is what kind of settlement mechanism would be practical. By employing normative legal research, the study concludes that the legal complexity and political sensitivity of each case require distinct resolution approaches. Notably, the author recommends that reconciliation mechanism should be implemented for some cases, while the court should be utilized for others.


Introduction
The Indonesian government has encountered a significant challenge following the end of the New Order, under the leadership of five subsequent Presidents after Suharto: B.J. Habibie, Abdurahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Megawati Soekarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Joko Widodo (Jokowi). Their struggle lies in determining a feasible resolution between groups seeking a settlement and those who neglect past human rights abuses. Indonesia's situation at present aligns with the ethical and political complexities that Guillerlmo O'Donnel and Philippe C. Schmitter (1993) described as a situation where deciding is exceedingly difficult.
Civil society, including victims and their loved ones, have called on the government to address past human rights violations through various channels, both nationally and internationally (such as in the Netherlands in November 2015). In response to this situation, the Victims Solidarity Network for Justice (JSKK) collaborated with other organizations to hold weekly "Silence Actions" as ABOUT THE AUTHORS Suparman Marzuki is an Associate Professor of Constitutional Law and Human Rights at Faculty of Law Universitas Islam Indonesia publishing several books on Human Rights. He is a Former Chairman of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia from 2013-2015. Mahrus Ali is a faculty member in the criminal law department at Universitas Islam Indonesia. His research interests include Islamic criminal law, environmental crimes, criminal law and human rights, eco-nomic crimes, victim of crime, and penal policy. a means of pursuing truth, justice, and remembrance. These actions were prompted by tragic events such as the Trisakti and Semanggi incidents, as well as Talang Sari Lampung, the Mysterious Shootings, the 1998 activist kidnappings, the 1998 riots, the Wasior Incident, the Wamena attacks, and other instances of human rights abuses.
Almost every Thursday since 1998, numerous parents of students who were allegedly shot on 12 May 1998, during protests calling for Suharto to step down from his position-known as the Trisakti and Semanggi cases-have been drying themselves with black umbrellas in front of the Jakarta state palace. It also happened to the massacre allegedly carried out by the military against a group of Muslim communities in Lampung, one of Indonesia's provinces, which was accused of being a security disruptor movement, and the series of mass killings that followed the alleged 1965 assassination of seven senior army officers by the Indonesian Communist Party as it was known as the Talang Sari case. The forced disappearance of 23 pro-democracy activists by the military in 1998, killings, deprivation of independence, and torture in Papua's Wasior District following the killing of 6 police officers by unidentified assailants in 2000, killings, forced movement, and arbitrary deprivations of liberty by the military, and covert operations of large-scale arrests and killings of people considered to disturb public security and peace, especially in Jakarta, Central Java were another unresolved past human right violation cases until today (Wahyuni, 2022).
In 2003, Nani Nurani, a court dancer who had been accused of being affiliated with the Indonesian Communist Party, took legal action against the sub-district head of Koja for denying her an identity card due to her past as a political prisoner. After a lengthy legal process, Nani's lawsuit was granted by the court and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008, which deemed the sub-district head's actions as arbitrary and unlawful. Additionally, in 2003, the Constitutional Court conducted a review of Article 60 letter (g) of Law no. 23 of 2003, which banned former members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and its affiliated organizations from holding positions in the central and local parliament and the senate. The Constitutional Court ruled that this article was invalid and did not have any binding legal force, as it contradicted the human rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In short, for 24 years after the New Order, the Indonesian nation's energy was sucked into this problem which hindered the acceleration of government and society's performance in building social, legal, economic, and political life more quickly to realize people's welfare. Efforts to enforce human rights law against past gross human rights violations often find deadlocks, locked, and almost certainly cannot be reopened (Hiariej, 2009).
The primary challenge hindering the settling of matters is the opposition from remnants of the previous regime, mainly the military. They are responsible for multiple human rights violations in authoritarian countries, including Indonesia. Thus, they strongly object to any legal settlement measures, including those involving state apologies (Patra, 2018). A heated public debate has taken place regarding the specific kinds of violations and their time limit for resolution. The primary question at hand is which approach would be most effective in addressing this situation. Is it through punishment using the court system, forgetting the past, forgiving the perpetrators, utilizing Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, or a combination of these methods?

Research method
This study employed normative legal research focusing on how to address past human rights violations in Indonesia. This method relied on literature studies, using a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. The focus of this study was on the legal norms and principles governing human rights violations in Indonesia and then analyze them in the context of past human rights violations. The approach involved analyzing existing laws, regulations, and case law, and examining legal institutions that are responsible for enforcing human rights. The conceptual approach analyzed the concept of human rights, examining how it is defined and applied within the Indonesian legal system. It started by defining the research problem, identifying the relevant legal principles and frameworks, and conducting a comprehensive review of the literature. It also analyzed the material, comparing different legal frameworks and principles to identify possible solutions to the research problem.

The complexity of human rights problem
The tensions between supporters of the old regime, such as the military and civil bureaucracy, and those in favor of democracy have always been present and contentious. Those who support the authoritarian regime are resistant to change and are unwilling to allow the emergence of a fully democratic political system. There is always the possibility of the old regime regaining power through a coup d'état, which casts a shadow over the democratization process. In many postauthoritarian countries, negotiations and compromises are necessary to achieve the desired political and legal changes. Realists and idealists within the pro-democratic forces must navigate the conflict between prioritizing legal avenues or saving democracy first. Various countries have different outcomes and forms of compromise, such as Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, and El Salvador.
The realist school of thought holds the belief that a state's decision to act must be based on rationality and likelihood of success (Hesse & Post, 1999). On the other hand, the idealist perspective emphasizes the importance of transitional justice that is based on universal conceptions of justice, specifically retributive and corrective justice (Beitz, 1979;Cassels, 2002). The goal of this approach is to bring about liberal changes that promote democracy and the rule of law (Teitel, 2000). It is difficult to hold the new government responsible for dealing with human rights violations committed by the old regime in this situation. This is unlike the case in Greece where the new government, formed through negotiations following popular resistance to the juntamilitary regime, swiftly took action to bring high-ranking officials to justice for their crimes. 1 The challenge is not choosing between justice and truth, but rather determining the most appropriate steps to rebuild moral and legal structures based on the unique circumstances of each country, while also holding parties accountable for past human rights violations for the sake of justice and peace through any means available. 2

Court mechanism
Under international customary law, there is an obligation to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of crimes against humanity (obligatio erga omnes) (Nababan, 2004). It is the responsibility of all humans to legally deal with such crimes and ensure fair punishment for the perpetrators. Therefore, granting amnesty to the perpetrators of these crimes would go against international law (Bassiouni, 1992). The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial Charter became the first international instrument to codify crimes against humanity in line with this principle. The most recent codification of crimes against humanity is found in the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda, which gives the court the power to prosecute individuals responsible for crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population for reasons of politics, race, religion, or ethnicity. This principle, known as the principle of "human rights violators must be punished," has been accepted in international human rights law. It is the duty of the state to prosecute and punish the most serious crimes under international law, and if the state fails to do so, the international community can take over this obligation (Cottier, 2005).
Additionally, the United Nation's fundamental principles for ending impunity encompass all areas and aspects, as well as some important mechanisms for addressing human rights violations, consisting of four pillars: a) the right to justice; b) the right to truth; c) the right to reparation; and d) guarantees of non-reoccurrence. 3 This perspective has emerged due to a widespread phenomenon known as the "justice cascade," which entails an increased call for accountability for past human rights violations, particularly those committed by the military and police during the democratization process. In the past, it was considered normal for political leaders, including heads of state, who had committed crimes against humanity to go unpunished. However, there has been a surge in demands and pressure for these perpetrators to face trial in court (Sikkink, 2001). In fact, between January 1990 and May 2008, 67 heads of state were prosecuted in court for alleged serious crimes (Sikkink, 2011).
The establishment of human rights courts in Indonesia, as per Law no. 26 of 2000, is a means to fulfill international obligations and adhere to the principle of "exhaustion of domestic remedies." This principle dictates that all domestic legal avenues must be explored before resorting to international or regional remedy mechanisms. Essentially, the primary forum for prosecuting individuals responsible for severe human rights violations is the national court, with international courts only necessary when domestic courts prove ineffective. If the national court system is working correctly, there is no need for international courts, unless the national system is biased towards protecting suspects or operating dishonestly. Universal jurisdiction is an international legal response to the issue of impunity for serious international crimes, where perpetrators can evade prosecution by freely operating in different parts of the world (Galingging, 2002).
Setting right severe violations of human rights through a national court forum is typically done by countries either incorporating a special human rights court that is permanent or ad hoc and established independently or in collaboration with the UN. The latter courts, known as mixed or Hybrid Tribunals, are internationalized domestic tribunals because they are staffed by judges, prosecutors, and clerks who are both local citizens and foreign nationals selected by the UN secretary general. Additionally, the courts receive funding and apply a material law that encompasses the national law of the country and various international human rights law norms, including the genocide convention, anti-torture convention, convention on civil and political rights, and Geneva convention. Three mixed courts are currently in operation: Sierra Leone's Special Court, Timor Leste's Special Panels, and Cambodia's Extraordinary Chamber. Indonesia has also pursued ad hoc human rights trials, but its attempts to use court mechanisms for punishment of past human rights violations came to naught (Rapoza, 2005;Williams, 2009).

Court road in the case of East Timor and Tanjung Priok
Following East Timor's secession from Indonesia after the East Timorese people option to do so through a referendum on 30 August 1999, a number of Indonesian military and police officers were brought before the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court in the East Timor case. They were accused of committing grave human rights violations in East Timor (now East Timor) including murder, rape, kidnapping, and torture. There were 18 defendants in court accused of being involved in torture and murder of crimes against humanity. The prosecution's indictment focused only on events that occurred between April-September 1999 without attributing them to previous events. 4 This contradicted with the definition of crimes against humanity requiring that such acts be part of widespread or systematic attacks on civilians. Widespread refers to the geographic extent or massive victims, while systematic refers to the existence of systematic policies that allow or even encourage gross human rights violations (Mettraux, 2002;Roberts, 2017). The population itself need not be homogeneous-it qualifies even if it includes non-civilians, provided that it is "predominantly civilian" (Nersessian, 2007).
Even though the defendants (police, military, and members of civil society) have distinguished statuses, the public prosecutors charged them with the similar legal provision. This leads to the deliberate compilation of the accusations in one indictment file against them. In the Ave Maria Suai church attack case, five defendants were charged (as major charges) with violating Article 42, paragraph 1, of Law Number 26 of 2000, which should only apply to military defendants. It goes without saying that defendants who are police or former (civilian) police officers cannot be charged with the same offense. With such an indictment, the elements of the offense charged against a specific offender become unfilled, leading to unproven allegation. In this sense, it is rational to argue that public prosecutor tried to eliminate the nexus of civilian military groups to the military and police. The loss of the context of the birth of pro-integration civilian militia groups who are direct perpetrators of the presence and security policies of the military has shifted the crimes against humanity to horizontal conflict among civilian groups. As the consequence, the group has only been identified as one side of the horizontal pro-and anti-independence opposition. The indictment failed to prove that the emerging civilian groups was deliberately formed by the military as the part of security policy in East Timor. 5 In this case, the court applied the Criminal Procedure Code with the limited legal evidence such as the testimony of a witness, information by an expert, a letter, an indication (indirect evidence), and the statement of a defendant as stipulated in Article 184 of the Code. This situation leads to insufficient evidentiary process. From the initial process, the public prosecutor has argued that the indictment cannot be proven. The presented evidence did not support the prosecutor's allegations. All testified witnesses were military and polices having a professional relationship with the defendant. No other evidence presented by public prosecutor. The judges have proven guilty of the offenders for committing murder and other forms of crime against humanity and sentenced them to between three and ten years. The judges argued that the culprits should receive light sentence because they cannot be criminally liable solely.
One of the flaws of the court comes with the criminal procedure as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. This code is intentionally directed toward the ordinary, and thus, it does not compatible to extra ordinary crimes such as crime against humanity and genocide. The evidence has limitation to prove whether the act meets the element of crime against humanity. This condition leads to the acquittal of all defendants in the district court, appeal court, as well as supreme court. Meanwhile, the international tribunal courts have expanded and recognized the types of evidence such as recording of speeches, press conferences, victim interviews, perpetrator interviews, scene conditions, copied documents, newspaper clippings, freelance articles, and an opinion related to the case as the evidence in the cases of crimes against humanity and genocide (Jalloh, 2013).
The Tanjung Priok ad hoc human rights court was the trial of a few militaries who tortured, kidnapped, and murdered 400 Tanjung Priok residents on 12 September 1984, following riots caused by soldiers who entered the mosque without taking off their shoes and poured dirty water into the mosque. This court also ended with the acquittal of all perpetrators of human rights violations because the indictment has narrowed the time and location of offense in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 9 of 2001. 6 The element of systematic and widespread has made it difficult to prove with such limited jurisdiction (Wald, 2007). The indictment has been designed by both cumulative and mixed manner charging the defendant with command criminal responsibility as stipulated in Article 42 section 3.1 as well as individual criminal responsibility regulated in Article 37 of Law No. 26 of 2000 concerning Human Rights Court. Both responsibilities were charged for the defendants who committed cumulative offenses including murder, attempted murder, deprivation of liberty or other arbitrary deprivation of physical liberty in violation of the fundamental provisions of international law, and torture.
This study argued that such indictment has several flaws. First, the scope of prosecution has only been limited to R. Butar-Butar, Pranowo, Sriyanto and Sutrisno as well as 10 members of Team III Yon Arhanudse 06, ignoring the KP3T's recommendation that the responsible persons in charge should be extended to include Benny Moerdani, Tri Sutrisno, Darminto, Captain Mattaoni as the military leaders as well as Soemardi as the Head of Gatot Subroto Hospital. 7 With no names filed, prosecutors have difficulty to prove the existence of a chain of command for the Tanjung Priok incident, while closing the possibility of policymakers or those in charge of the command being criminally responsible for the offenses (Kearney, 2013).
Second, the Sriyanto has only been charged as the person who deliberately aid in the commission of the crime on the basis that he shall not be regarded as the military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander who has effective command and control, or effective authority and control. The defendant either knew or owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes (Morales, 2017;Sondakh, 2006). The prosecutor ruled out or did not consider the important position of Sriyanto as the Kasi II Ops Kodim 0502 North Jakarta in the military unit.
Third, in proving the element of "systematic", prosecutor argued that a detailed account of the series of incidents that took place between July and September 1984 were caused by preachers who incited their flocks to oppose government policies imposing the single principle of Pancasila, Family Planning, and the ban on wearing headscarves in schools, as well as the deteriorating political, social, cultural, and religious situation in Tanjung Priok. In this context, the incident was a stand-alone event due to the presence of preachers in the area, not due to government policy (Bookbinder, 2016). In fact, the prosecution ignored the finding of KP3T investigation stating that the escalating situation in the area was due to government policies imposing the single principle of Pancasila which was rejected by the community and religious leaders of Tanjung Priok. The prosecution only emphasizes the substantial number of victims even in the proving of element of "widespreah" (Mantilla, 2016). The public prosecutor ought to go into further detail regarding the geographical component of the expanding aspect, citing how the Tanjung Priok incident also affected other areas, including Central Jakarta, South Jakarta, Garut, Tasikmalaya, Ciamis, Lampung, and Ujung Pandang. As a result, the incidents that took place outside of North Jakarta must be viewed as a unit with the major sequence of incidents, specifically the incidents that took place on 12 September 1984, in the Kodim 0502 neighborhood of North Jakarta.
The court likewise had to deal with limitations imposed by procedural rules and a dearth of tangible evidence. A few of the prosecution's witnesses renounced or at least amended their testimony before the court. 8 Interestingly, the judge also let non-examined witnesses, including some witnesses who were defendants themselves, to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial. The unfair judicial process to the principles of proving serious crimes against humanity leads to two types of conflicting judges' decisions. One decides stated that there had been crimes against humanity in the form of murder, attempted murder and torture as alleged by the prosecutor, but other decisions stated that there had been no crimes against humanity. The initial ruling by the judges' panel determined that there was convincing legal proof of an attack targeting civilians, that was either widespread or systematic. However, a subsequent ruling contradicted this by stating that the evidence presented at the trial did not meet the criteria for a systematic or widespread attack, which is a key element of crimes against humanity.
It is puzzling how two different decisions could arise from the same event. Upon closer examination of the evidence, including testimony from victim witnesses, it becomes clear that most of them had experienced and witnessed crimes against humanity committed by the defendants. This study found that there were four major causes leading to this difference verdicts. Initially, the defendants were tried by different panels of judges. Additionally, during the legal process, judges and prosecutors are under pressure from the military and police who are present in the courtroom. The presented evidence is also not handled fairly in accordance with the principles of proving serious crimes against humanity. Last, both career judges and non-career judges (ad hoc judges) have different perspectives on the details of the cases.
Based on the above explanation, it is argued that effort to resolve past gross violation of human right through court mechanism ended unsatisfactory, and even harmed the rights of victims of crimes. The court comes to an end and eliminates any chance of resolution by means of other mechanisms. The East Timor and Tanjung Priok ad hoc human rights courts did not consistently achieve their goal of bringing justice and holding perpetrators accountable (Linton, 2004). Some argue that the trial was deliberately intended to fail from the outset (Cohen, 2004). As such, the courts have become a means to legitimize impunity, allowing perpetrators to avoid punishment for their unlawful and criminal actions (Jacques, 2000). The UN Special Rapporteur, Louis Jonnet, defines impunity as the inability to hold those responsible for human rights violations accountable through legal proceedings, as they are not subjected to any investigation that may lead to their accusation, arrest, trial, conviction, or compensation for their victims. The assessment of outsiders regarding the performance of the Serious Crimes process was generally unsatisfactory, with many books criticizing it for not meeting international standards. Even the UN commission of experts found that the ad hoc court lacked commitment in carrying out effective criminal procedures, resulting in errors in the investigation process, witness and victim protection, and evidence provision, leading to weak trial procedures.

Mechanism of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
During Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's presidency, a team of agencies was established to identify the most effective approach to address past human rights violations. The team visited victims in several locations, but it received criticism from rights organizations and victims' groups for its failure to implement a clear plan to deliver truth, justice, and reparation. More recently, the Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla administration has attempted to address these issues, but like the earlier government, it has fallen short. Consequently, alternative approaches must be considered to overcome this stagnant issue. The TRC was established to address past human rights violations during the transitional and democratic consolidation era. Its main goal is to uncover the truth and provide clarity on incidents that occurred by conducting investigations, clarifications, inquiries, trials, and compensating victims. According to Priscilla Hayner (2005), there are four key elements that characterize the TRC: it focuses on past crimes, aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of human rights violations, operates for a specified time, and has the authority to access information and provide protection to witnesses. There are four ways to settle past gross human rights violations-to not forget or forgive, to not forget but forgive, to forget but never forgive, and to forget and forgive.
The state has a responsibility to reveal the truth if individuals have a right to it. This responsibility includes providing explanations and clarifications to those affected by past events, such as victims and their families. Additionally, the state should make strides to improve future actions and not disregard its history. Three minimum standards must be met by the state: remembering past events, punishing those involved in past wrongdoings, and facilitating redress. Truth commissions have been created to resolve past crimes and promote reconciliation between political factions. Over 25 countries have established truth commissions since the 1970s, and countries have taken inspiration from the experiences of others to address human rights violations. This has also happened in Eastern Europe and Asia, with commissions established in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and India (Putri, 2003).
The importance of truth commissions is not solely to reveal factual information, but also to acknowledge the state's criminal actions against its own citizens and to use the lessons learned to implement substantive changes moving forward (Hayner, 2005). Some proponents of democracy may not fully embrace truth commissions, believing they serve to conceal impunity, yet this view arises from political challenges and negotiations related to a precarious democratic consolidation period. While present political authorities favor the stability of the democratic process, it is apparent that former political leaders prefer to avoid accountability for past transgressions. Julio Sanguinetti, the ex-president of Uruguay, who was elected president as part of a settlement between military and civilian politicians, strongly emphasized the significance of strengthening democracy over arraigning individuals guilty of severe human rights offenses, which could disrupt the process of solidifying democracy. In fact, he even provoked his opponents by asking if they wanted to focus on the upcoming future or past occurrences. He himself boldly declared that if the French were still dwelling on the St. Bartholomew massacre, they would still be engaged in fierce violence to this day.
Compromises and negotiations take different forms and are often the preferred choice. Many countries prioritize safeguarding politics, even if it marginalizes the legal process, as the risk of the old regime returning to authoritarian rule is too high. It's also difficult to take legal action due to the lack of evidence and commitment from state officials. Many countries opt to reveal the facts and move forward with life rather than choosing the court. Indonesia has not yet adopted a TRC mechanism for addressing past human rights violations, even though it has two policy options available under the Human Rights Court law. These are using the court or establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Indonesia has yet to adopt the TRC mechanism for resolving previous human rights violations, despite the existence of Law no. 26 of 2000, which offers two options for the government to pursue. The first option is a legal method through an ad hoc human rights court, while the second involves establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as outlined in Article 47 paragraph (1).
The concept introduced in Law no. 26 of 2000 concerning a TRC was later strengthened by the passing of Law no. 27 of 2004. This law was in line with MPR Decree No. V/MPR/2000 on enhancing national unity and the 1945 Constitution. The TRC had the power to receive complaints, investigate past gross human rights abuses and suggest compensation or rehabilitation for victims. TRCs were also valuable for learning from past mistakes and preventing them from being repeated, as well as preserving shared experiences. However, the TRC plan was unfortunately canceled due to a Constitutional Court ruling in 2006 following a judicial review by Arukat Djaswadi.
However, it should be noted that the possibility of utilizing the TRC mechanism is not entirely foreclosed. Local TRCs can still be reactivated under the Regional Regulations legal basis. It is crucial to resolve past human rights violations to prevent them from becoming a burden on history and society. This includes providing justice to victims and their families and creating a mechanism for government accountability and apologies to those affected. According to Lewis B. Smedes (1984), apologies serve four purposes: to address hurt, reduce hatred, promote selfhealing, and enable individuals to move forward together. Forgiveness involves honest release and a commitment to peaceful coexistence going forward, which requires both sincerity and trust. Thus, resolving human rights violations through means other than the court will not fully provide justice for the victims. However, due to the intricacy of the problem, finding a solution is challenging. It requires bravery to choose the most practical course of action instead of opting for the ideal or profitable path. It may be less unsatisfactory to not pursue legal action, not seek punishment, not offer forgiveness, but most importantly, not let go of the past (Huntington, 1993).

Alternative mechanism
Indonesia has faced various cases of gross human rights violations that have differed in terms of background, number of victims, perpetrators, and socio-political, economic, religious, and cultural contexts. These differences make it challenging to devise a national solution, instead requiring a customized approach that could involve the courts, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), or a combination of both. Many countries have adopted the practice of resolving issues through TRCs, such as Argentina, which formed the National Commission for Missing Persons of Argentina, Chile's National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, the El Salvador Truth Commission, and Guatemala's Silent Memory. South Africa also established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to analyze and explain the root causes and extent of gross human rights violations, including identifying the perpetrators. The commission gathered the confessions of 23,000 witnesses and victims, with 2,000 testimonies provided in public hearings. The final report of these commissions offers recommendations for addressing and resolving such violations. However, given the unique circumstances surrounding each case of human rights violation, the solution must be tailored accordingly, considering socio-political, cultural, and religious sensitivity. By utilizing a TRC or court system, countries can take steps towards accountability, healing, and reconciliation in the aftermath of human rights abuses.
The 1965 events, also known as the 30 September 1965 Movement, have proven to be politically sensitive and complicated due to their connection with religious beliefs. Therefore, attempts through court or TRC to resolve the issue have been unfruitful since the fall of the New Order 24 years ago. Various crimes were committed during this time including killings without due process, forced labor, arbitrary arrest, and unfair trials. It is crucial to find a practical solution for these violations rather than an ideal one. Reconciliation may be the most feasible path according to Hayner (2005). In 2012, the National Commission on Human Rights discovered human rights violations such as rape, murder, and enforced disappearances, yet the case is currently stalled at the Attorney General's Office. Hayner (2005) suggests that reconciliation goes beyond restoring positive relationships and includes resolving conflicting facts or narratives to ensure they align. It also involves exposing the truth and holding individuals accountable for their actions. This emphasis on responsibility and accountability is crucial for successful reconciliation (Kasim & Terre, 2003).
This effort cannot be achieved all at once but must be done gradually. The first step is for the state to have the courage and honesty to acknowledge the findings of an official investigation by The National Commission on Human Rights, which has uncovered evidence of nine crimes against humanity during the period of 1965-1966. The commission has found that the Security and Order Restoration Operation Command (Kopkamtib) during Soeharto presidency should be held responsible for these violations. The second step is to issue an apology for the actions of state actors in the past and the third step is to provide rehabilitation and compensation for victims. This reconciliation process differs from the Jokowi administration's reconciliation model in 2015, which did not require the truth to be revealed. The UN's basic principles for the elimination of impunity involve four pillars: the right to justice, the right to truth, the right to reparation, and guarantees of nonrecurrence, which are important mechanisms for resolving human rights violations. The process of reconciliation still necessitates certain preconditions to be met before it can gain acceptance among the section of society that has been influenced by the resistance movement against settling the 1965 case.
This project is expected to require a significant investment of time, effort, and funds. To overcome opposition to reconciliation, it is necessary to implement local measures in the local language using local figures at the village level to explain the meaning, usage, purpose, and process of reconciliation. Institutional preconditions must also be established for educational institutions, bureaucracy, the Indonesian National Police, and religious organizations. In Palu City, local initiatives have emerged to address past human rights violations, coinciding with the city's declaration as a Human Rights Aware City in 2012. The commission for Reception, Truth, and Reconciliation model (CAVR/A Comissão de Acolhimento, Verdade e. Reconciliação) carried out in Timor Leste offers valuable lessons, as it deals with issues that cannot be resolved through retributive or punitive justice alone and emphasizes grassroots reconciliation and active community reintegration by incorporating traditional legal cultural concepts. Dionísio provides an interesting analysis of this approach.
The Talangsari Lampung case involved the oppression of a group of Muslim communities who were accused of being the extreme right-wing group in 1989. The repressive actions resulted in the death of approximately 803 victims. On 2 March 2005, The National Commission on Human Rights created a specific unit to investigate the Talangsari incident, and on 19 May 2005, the team concluded that there were serious human rights violations during the incident. The Attorney General received the investigation results and returned the files to the Commission with incomplete reasons in 2006. Additionally, there were several Aceh cases that happened from 1989-2004, including the eradication of the extreme right-wing group, Operation Wibawa, the massacre of Tgk Bantaqiah and his students, Operation Rajawali in 2001, and Military Emergency I and II. Although not as socially and politically charged as the 1965 event, these situations can still be resolved through government-directed reconciliation. The government can admit to the findings of The National Commission on Human Rights' inquiry and exhibit regret, as well as offer support and remuneration to those affected. The process may require an alternative scheme because of the case distinctions, but it can still result in a sense of harmony and resolution for those impacted and their loved ones.
There are several cases in Indonesia where there have been serious human rights violations. For example, in the Petrus case, shootings were carried out between 1982-1985, resulting in the death of around 1,678 victims. The National Commission on Human Rights has investigated several cases such as the Trisakti Student Shootings, Semanggi I and II Tragedies, and the Wasior case. However, the back and forth of files between the Attorney General's Office and The National Commission on Human Rights has resulted in no clear follow-up on the investigation process for these cases. It is possible that some of the Aceh cases will be resolved through the courts, as some evidence and witnesses are still available. These cases are a direct challenge to the state and the people as the victims and perpetrators are known, and there are no societal or religious sensitivities involved. The violation of human rights in these cases is a serious matter, and they need to be fully investigated to provide justice for the victims. For the court proceedings to be just and impartial, it is necessary for the government to have the determination and bravery to either modify Law no. 26 of 2000 or release a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu). This will establish a solid and accurate legal foundation to avoid the recurrence of the ad hoc human rights court cases in Timor-Timor, Tanjung Priok, and Abepura where the offenders were not found guilty.

Conclusion
When transitioning from a regime of authoritarianism to democracy, countries are invariably faced with demands for resolving outstanding debts relating to gross violations of human rights committed by the previous regime. Pro-democracy groups insist that redressing these wrongs is a necessary step towards guaranteeing that the state is truly moving towards democratic governance. Nonetheless, a struggle ensues between pro-democracy groups, who wish for a clear, equitable and open resolution to establish a fairer future, and the forces of the former regime, who still hold influence within the government bureaucracy, political parties, and the army. These groups are resistant to acknowledging their past, along with the actions that cost human life. Consequently, the negotiations for postauthoritarian human rights violations can extend an indefinite period.
On one hand, the government is mindful of the potential for the remnants of the old regime to destabilize the advancement of democracy; however, this cautiousness causes delay. Whereas on the other hand, democratic groups both domestically and internationals perceive the new democracy in a skeptical light, concerning the socio-political and legal legitimacy of the state. Consequently, there must be a unified collaborative effort between the remnants of the authoritarian regime and pro-democracy groups to find a fair and satisfactory resolution that does not compromise the hard-won democracy. During the presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), legal action was taken in the East Timor and Tanjung Priok cases. However, these steps did not lead to justice as the court proceedings ended without any punishment for the perpetrators. Instead, the court system became a way to protect the actions of the past regime. Subsequent administrations under President Megawati, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Joko Widodo have not made any significant efforts to resolve other cases of gross human rights violations.
It is important that this issue is resolved so that Indonesia can move forward without the burden of human rights violations. To achieve this, settlement steps must be carried out on a case-by-case basis through the reconciliation mechanism and the court system. For cases such as the 1965 incident, Talangsari riots, and several cases in Aceh, gradual reconciliation is suggested. Cases such as the Petrus shooting, Trisakti Student Shooting, Semanggi I and II Tragedies, Wasior case, Wamena case, and some Aceh cases are still possible to be resolved through the court system, provided there is political will and revisions to the law on the Human Rights Court to avoid the weaknesses seen in the East Timor and Tanjung Priok cases. It is important that the people and future generations of Indonesia do not continue to carry the burden of human debts, and justice is served. The government must take decisive steps to resolve these cases and provide closure for the victims and their families.