Dedy A. Prasetyo
Dedy holds a Bachelor of Law from The University of Indonesia [UI] and Master of Law from The Hong Kong University [HKU]. Doctor of Law from Jayabaya University. He holds bar license from PERADI (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia/Indonesia Bar Association). He serves as the Managing Partner at DEDY ARDIAN
Address: Jakarta, Indonesia
Address: Jakarta, Indonesia
less
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
One of the results is the enactment of Law No. 26/2000 concerning Human Rights Court which mandate to establish the Truth Commission. This mandate clearly stipulate in Article 47 (1). Four years later, the House of Representative issued Law No.27/2004 concerning Truth and Reconciliation Commission which dealing with gross human rights violation in the past. In this context, the settlement of human rights violation in the past not only focused on accountability through the court but also through a non-legal mechanism (reconciliation!).
In other hand, the enactment of this law produces a serious debate among various groups whether inside or outside parliament. Outside parliament, there are two camps in civil society when they dealt with this issue. First camps said Indonesia would be better to strengthen the role of human rights court than using the instrument of truth commission. They believe that justice can be only achieved by bringing the perpetrator to justice. Second camps think that the establishment of truth commission will provide an opportunity for victims to tell about their past experiences, and this way is believed to be able to promote the process of reconciliation. In short, the existence of the commission is to supplement human rights court in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s commitment to settle some gross human rights violation cannot be separated from some claims by some groups of community. They are the victims of human rights violations in Aceh, Papua, 1965 Communist Coup and other victims who claim for a justice. There are two things containing in the laws in Indonesia concerning this matter. Firstly, justice shall be implemented through court mechanism, and secondly through reconciliation mechanism.
One of the results is the enactment of Law No. 26/2000 concerning Human Rights Court which mandate to establish the Truth Commission. This mandate clearly stipulate in Article 47 (1). Four years later, the House of Representative issued Law No.27/2004 concerning Truth and Reconciliation Commission which dealing with gross human rights violation in the past. In this context, the settlement of human rights violation in the past not only focused on accountability through the court but also through a non-legal mechanism (reconciliation!).
In other hand, the enactment of this law produces a serious debate among various groups whether inside or outside parliament. Outside parliament, there are two camps in civil society when they dealt with this issue. First camps said Indonesia would be better to strengthen the role of human rights court than using the instrument of truth commission. They believe that justice can be only achieved by bringing the perpetrator to justice. Second camps think that the establishment of truth commission will provide an opportunity for victims to tell about their past experiences, and this way is believed to be able to promote the process of reconciliation. In short, the existence of the commission is to supplement human rights court in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s commitment to settle some gross human rights violation cannot be separated from some claims by some groups of community. They are the victims of human rights violations in Aceh, Papua, 1965 Communist Coup and other victims who claim for a justice. There are two things containing in the laws in Indonesia concerning this matter. Firstly, justice shall be implemented through court mechanism, and secondly through reconciliation mechanism.