1965 TRIBUNAL HEARINGS: The Indictment

Home/Article/Opinion/1965 TRIBUNAL HEARINGS: The Indictment

1965 TRIBUNAL HEARINGS: The Indictment

The International People’s Tribunal on 1965 Crimes Against Humanity in Indonesia

INDICTMENT

The Prosecution of the International People’s Tribunal on 1965 Crimes against Humanity in Indonesia charges:

the State of Indonesia

with the commission of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and violations of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW provisions, as set forth below:

The Accused:

  1. The State of Indonesia, in particular the armed forces under General and later President Suharto, as well as subsequent governments and the militias under its control.
  2. After the murder of the 6 generals and 1 lieutenant in the night of 30 September – 1 October 1965 by the ’30 September Movement’ (“G30S”), a campaign of annihilation of people and organizations associated with the Indonesian Communist Party (“PKI”) was waged. This campaign consisted of a hate propaganda aimed at painting those alleged to belong to the PKI as atheist, amoral, antiPancasila and hyper-sexual.
  3. The army and the militias under its control killed hundreds of thousands of alleged members and sympathisers of the PKI, illegally detained hundreds of thousands of people, subjecting them to torture, as well as sexual and gender-based violence. Further, forced labour and deportation, including the revocation of passports occurred on a large scale. The campaign of hate propaganda continues to this day.
  4. As a result of these acts and/or omissions a significant part of the national group of Indonesians, alleged members and sympathisers of the PKI, has been annihilated, its identity and history destroyed. In the process Indonesian history as a whole has been rewritten, the social structure as found in middle 1965 profoundly changed and the consequent course of history profoundly affected. To this day, survivors and victims are burdened with stigma and being held responsible for the acts committed against them.

State Responsibility Under International Law:

  1. Pursuant to the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Articles”) the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for the acts committed. These Articles represent customary international law and thus legally binding on all States.
  2. The primary principle underlying the Articles as a whole is that a breach of international law by a State entails its international responsibility. This fundamental legal principle has been applied by various courts and tribunals on many occasions both before and since the adoption of the Articles by the United Nations General Assembly.
  3. Further, under the law of State responsibility, facilitating the commission of an internationally wrongful act by other States, such as the perpetration of crimes against humanity, or other abusive behaviour, the facilitating State may be held responsible for making such violations possible. That is to say, complicit behaviour of States in aiding or assisting other States in violating international law is prohibited under the law of State responsibility.
  4. In addition to prohibiting aid and assistance regarding any violation of international law, the Articles include an absolute prohibition on aiding and abetting of serious breaches of States’ obligations arising under peremptory norms of international law. A breach is considered serious if it involves a gross or systematic failure by the State to fulfil the obligation in question. Today, the norms that are widely accepted as being peremptory in nature include the prohibition of aggression, genocide, slavery, apartheid, crimes against humanity, torture and the right to self-determination.
  5. The acts and/or omissions referred to above were committed under the full responsibility of the State. General Suharto assumed immediately on 2 October 1965 de facto control of the capital and the armed forces. A new Operations Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (“Kopkamtib”) was established on 10 October to implement the liquidation of the PKI and alleged sympathisers. On 1 November General Suharto was appointed as the Chief Commander of the Kopkamtib. Consequently, this Command operated under the direct orders of General Suharto.
  6. Under the command of the army and in alliance with conservative religious forces, widespread and violent student demonstrations spearheaded a campaign to remove President Sukarno from power and annihilate the PKI. In March 1966, General Suharto wrested control from President Sukarno; the following year he was appointed as President of the State of Indonesia.
  7. General Suharto and his associates immediately blamed the PKI as the masterminds of the G30S. A military propaganda campaign distributed pictures of the dead generals with claims that Communists, particularly Communist women, had tortured and butchered them before death. As a result, violence and demonstrations by the army and various youth groups, equipped and/or supported by the military and the government, targeting suspected Communists soon broke out in Aceh, Central and East Java, before spreading all over Indonesia. Civilians were killed, raped, tortured, enslaved or subjected to other crimes against humanity in their own homes or in public places.
  8. On 21 December 1965, General Suharto issued an order (“KEPI/KOPKAM/12/1965”) for military leaders around Indonesia to compile lists of members of PKI and PKI-affiliated organisations in their respective areas. Civilians whose names were included in these lists became the targets for gross human rights violations including murder, torture and other crimes, as has been reported by the Indonesian National Commission for Human Rights (“Komnas HAM”).
  9. In 1998, President Suharto was forced to step down and the so-called Reformation period began. However, the power structure established under the rule of President Suharto remained largely intact. To this day, no official apology has been pronounced nor have any of the perpetrators been prosecuted. Impunity reigns to this day.

Crimes Against Humanity:

  1. The Prosecution is in full recognition of the fact that it is not a judicial body and therefore cannot make any submissions with regard to individual criminal responsibility. It can however present evidence seeking to establish reasonable grounds that CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY have been committed so as to merit a criminal investigation by a competent national or international criminal court of justice.
  2. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY has primarily developed through the evolution of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Unlike other international crimes, it has not been codified yet in an international treaty.
  3. Fundamentally, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY are inhumane acts – which would constitute crimes in most of the world’s national criminal law system – committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. Most importantly, the prohibition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY is a jus cogens norm of international law, meaning that derogation is not permitted under any circumstances. Consequently, States have an obligation under international law to prosecute those responsible for the commission of such crimes, or to extradite them to States intending to pursue prosecution.
  4. The first prosecution of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY was conducted before the International Military Tribunal (“IMT”) at Nuremberg. In 1947, the topic of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ was added to the International Law Commission’s (“ILC”) agenda, mandated by the United Nations’ General Assembly with the formulation and codification of the principles of international law recognised and reinforced in the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment.
  5. Of significant importance is Control Council Law No. 10 (“CCL10”), dated 20 December 1945, which deliberately abandoned the nexus requirement of armed conflict. The CCL10 was issued by an international body, the Allied Control Council, and formed the basis for the prosecution of international crimes in the zones of Germany. Moreover, after almost 50 years of in-depth considerations, the definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY adopted by the ILC in its Draft Code in 1996, differs from the one used at the Nuremberg Tribunal, by not requiring a nexus between such crimes and an armed conflict.
  6. Subsequent ad hoc international criminal tribunals charged with the prosecution of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY have tended to employ slightly different definitions of the crime and in some cases abandoned the nexus requirement of armed conflict altogether. The permanent International Criminal Court (“ICC”) defines such crimes in its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. Further, the Rome Statute definition offers the most expansive list of specific criminal acts that may constitute CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY to date.
  7. The definition provided by the Rome Statute is not to be considered as a definitive codification. However, it is our submission that it does reflect the latest consensus of the international community as a whole on this issue. Consequently, at this point of time, it may be considered the most authoritative definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Additionally, the ILC’s most recent Draft Articles on this topic, adopted in 2015, are in the same line.
  8. The definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY has evolved overtime and to the current juncture whereby said crimes can be committed in armed conflict and times of relative peace. Nevertheless, the crimes relevant to this Indictment were committed at time where the pervading definition under customary international law was that contained in the Nuremberg Charter and required a nexus between the crimes as alleged and an armed conflict, which was not the case during the period relevant to this Indictment. As stated above, already on 20 December 1945, the Allied Control Council issued the CCL10 and renounced the nexus requirement of armed conflict. Therefore, immediately after the adoption of the Nuremberg Charter, an international body further developed the definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY departing from the requirement that such crimes require a link with armed conflict. In 2000, the Indonesian Law No. 26 adopted in its Article 9 the definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY as contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute where no such nexus is required. Further, Law No. 26 has retroactive effect in the State of Indonesia as evidenced by Articles 43, 44 and 47, providing for the establishment of an ad hoc human rights court or, in the alternative, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a response to gross human rights violations committed prior to the entry into force of said Law and necessarily pursuant to Article 9. It is also of guidance that the inquiry by the national Human Rights Commission into the 1965-66 events was undertaken pursuant to Law No. 26, in addition to its qualification of those events constituting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, pursuant to Article 9 of said Law.
  9. The Prosecution asserts therefore that Article 9 of Law No. 26 in conjunction with Article 7 of the Rome Statue provides a sound basis on which to infer liability on the State of Indonesia.

General Allegations:

  1. All acts and/or omissions charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the PKI and its alleged sympathisers.
  2. At all times relevant to this Indictment, the State of Indonesia was required to abide by the rules and customs of Public International Law.

The Charges:

COUNT 1

MURDER

  1. The State of Indonesia acting individually or in concert with other participants planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organizations, members of the Chinese population in Indonesia, and members of the general civilian population from 1 October 1965 until at least 31 December 1970. This took place through acts and omissions by policy and military units controlled by the State of Indonesia.
  2. Murder is prohibited under Article 9(1) of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
  3. The murders were part of the widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population. Authority to perpetrate the murders came from policies made by the State of Indonesia and the murders were carried out by State bodies, as well as organisations supported by and/or functioning under the instructions or guidance of the State. The highest State authority responsible for the murders and other atrocities was the Kopkamtib. The executions were carried out by or under the orders of several military entities, varying according to province.
  4. Soon after Suharto issued the above mentioned order on 21 December 1965, military units at the district and provincial levels commenced widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organisations.
  5. In some provinces such as Bali, widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organisations already began to take place before the Kopkamtib order was issued.
  6. Widespread murder of members of the Chinese-Indonesian population in the province of Aceh:
    1. After 1 October 1965, there were several outbreaks of violence against the Chinese-Indonesian population including members of the Indonesian Citizenship Consultative Body (“Baperki”) and non-members.
    2. Although Baperki was established as a non-political organisation for Chinese-Indonesians, it was supported by the PKI and former President Sukarno. It is for these reasons that its members were subjected to murder and other forms of violence or inhumane treatment.
    3. According to witnesses of anti-Chinese violence in Aceh between late October and November 1965, three members of Baperki were murdered during this period. One victim was pushed out to sea, another victim was burnt and the third victim was stabbed to death.
    4. Any person identified as a friend of Baperki was considered to have sufficient affiliation to the organisation to become a target for murder. Murder of people associated with Baperki took place in several districts in Aceh, including Meulaboh, Tapaktuan, and Blangpidie.
  7. Widespread and systematic murder of members of the Chinese-Indonesian population in the province of West Kalimantan:
    1. In the year 1967, thousands of Chinese-Indonesians were murdered by the Indonesian military in West Kalimantan.
    2. During the era of confrontation with Malaysia, President Sukarno formed the Sarawak People’s Guerilla Force (“Pasukan Geriliyawan Rakyat Sarawak” or “PGRS”), which followed Communist ideology.
    3. Many members of the Chinese-Indonesian population living in West Kalimantan, joined the PGRS.
    4. The confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia ceased in 1966 after General Suharto’s replacement of Sukarno as President and the State of Indonesia sought to suppress the PGRS.
    5. As a means to suppress the PGRS and Communism more broadly, the Indonesian military murdered large numbers of Chinese-Indonesians living in West Kalimantan.
  8. Widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI in the Province of East Nusa Tenggara:
    1. According to a report prepared by Komnas HAM, there was a malnutrition tragedy in the province of East Nusa Tenggara during 1965 and 1966.
    2. Relief was provided to affected people by the PKI as well as the Peasants Front of Indonesia (“BTI”), including land allocation to the people East Nusa Tenggara.
    3. The Indonesian military considered anybody who had received assistance from the PKI or BTI during this time as being associated with these organisations. For this reason, large numbers of civilians were arrested, detained and executed by military officers.
    4. In mid-February 1966, a meeting was held at the house of the Military Commander (“Kodim 1607”) in the District of Maumere. The Head of Staff at the local Operation Command (“Kastaf Komop”) invited members of local political parties, social organisations and the Golkar Party to join the meeting. Those in attendance were called upon to “secure” (i.e. execute) all leaders, members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI. They were told that this would be necessary to save the Catholic Church in East Nusa Tenggara because of the PKI’s association with various atheist organisations.
    5. On 16 February 1966, the local Operation Command (“Komop”) informed Catholic priests that there had been a number of deaths as a result of the operation discussed at the meeting in Maumere. The number of people killed by police and military officers in the districts of East Nusa Tenggara were reported to be as follows:

i. District of Sabu: 34 people ii. District of Sumba: 40 People iii. District of Alor: 409 People iv. District of Kupang Timur: 58 People

v. District of Timor Tengah Selatan: 700 People vi. District of Baun: 34 People

    1. In some districts, the military forced local civilians to attend mass executions in order to discourage them from fighting against the government like the PKI. In other districts, civilians could hear the firing squad executing members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI during the night.
    2. The arrest, detention, torture and execution of PKI members, followers and sympathisers was led by the local military and assisted by local government leaders, the Catholic Church, political party members and youth organizations.
    3. Youth organizations were recruited and armed by local military officers to arrest, detain, torture and execute members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI.
    4. The arrest, detention, torture and execution of PKI members, followers and sympathisers lasted until 1967, when Catholic priests in Alor ordered military officers to stop the operation.
  1. Widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKIaffiliated organizations in the province of Central Java:
    1. According to research conducted by Matthias J. Hammer, between 100,000 and 140,000 people were killed by military and paramilitary groups in Central Java between 1965 and 1966.
    2. Based on research conducted by members of IPT 1965, it is estimated that a further 70,000 people detained in the District of Klaten were murdered by the military.
  2. Widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKIaffiliated organizations in the province of Bali:
    1. According to research conducted by Ngurah Suriawan, 200-300 members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI were murdered by military and paramilitary forces (including RPKAD

and Banser NU) at Tegal Badung in the Baluk sub-district of Jembara District during October 1965.

    1. Many members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organisations were murdered by the military on Candikusuma Beach, located in the Melaya sub-district of Negara District.
  1. Widespread and systematic murder of members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKIaffiliated organizations in the province of South Sulawesi:
    1. According to research conducted by Taufik Ahmad, 300 members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organizations were murdered by the military during November 1965 in Bone District.
  2. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 1: Murder, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 2

ENSLAVEMENT

  1. The State of Indonesia, acting individually or in concert with other participants illegally detained and enslaved members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organisations in prison camps. The illegal detention and enslavement was carried out by police and military commanders and is recorded to have started on 1 October 1965.
  2. The prohibition against slavery is unambiguously part of customary international law and defined as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY under Article 9(3) of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7(1)(c) of the Rome Statute. Article 7(2)(c) of the Rome Statute further characterises enslavement as the exercise of any or all powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, particularly women and children. Indicia of enslavement include control of someone’s movement, control of physical environment, psychological control, measures taken to prevent or deter escape, force, threat of force or coercion, duration, assertion of exclusivity, subjection to cruel treatment and abuse, control of sexuality and forced labour. Forced or involuntary labour may also constitute enslavement.
  3. The conditions in the prison camps were very poor and the prisoners were forced to endure hard labour without payment while being provided with very little food.
  4. People were recorded to have been illegally detained in these prison camps, in many cases without an arrest warrant, for periods of up to 10 years and many people were moved from one camp to another several times.
  5. The existence of several prison camps around Indonesia has been recorded, including:
    1. Monconglowe in South Sulawesi
    2. Nanga-Nanga and Kendari in Southeast Sulawesi
    3. Kamarau Island in South Sumatera
    4. Argosari in East Kalimantan
    5. Wadas, Latitude, Bradford, Nusakambangan and Plantungan (a women’s prison camp) in Central Java
    6. Buru Island, Maluku.
  6. Enslavement in Monconglowe, South Sulawesi:
    1. 911 people were sent to Monconglowe in 1969.
    2. Work carried out by people enslaved in Monconglowe is recorded to include:
      1. Korve work consisting of land clearing, tree felling, timber sawing, quarry work and bamboo cutting.
      2. Work on building projects, namely the building of Operations Command offices and housing for the military.
      3. Private slave labour for individual members of the XIV Hasanuddin Regional Command Battalion Guard (“Kiwal Kodim”), including work on plantations owned by battalion members. This type of work was described as an implementation of the Regional Inspection Policy to provide “guidance and supervision” to the prisoners.
    3. A witness who was enslaved in Camp Monconglowe has detailed that people were forced to work long hours without pay and given only half a litre of rice per day. The witness had to work on the construction of houses, land clearing and road building, including the 23km road from Monconglowe to Daya. The witness was detained for 10 years.
    4. Another witness in the same camp has described their experience of cutting wood and bamboo without pay.
  7. Enslavement on Buru Island, Maluku:
    1. More than 10,000 people are recorded to have been enslaved on Buru Island from 1969 onwards.
    2. In 1972, the relatives of many prisoners were deported to the island of Buru.
    3. Prisoners were forced to work on projects such as the building of roads and irrigation channels, clearing of land, harvesting of rice, building and renovation of barracks and homes, cutting of wood, building of public buildings including prayer houses and healthcare centres and the production of salt and sugar.
    4. Food provided to prisoners had very poor nutritional value. Prisoners were only occasionally allowed to eat rice (a maximum 250 grams per day) and were usually provided with cassava, corn, sweet potatoes or sago. Many became accustomed to eating rats, snakes and other such meat.
  8. Enslavement in Balikpapan, East Kalimantan:
    1. In 1972, 800 people are recorded to have been enslaved in Balikpapan and their labour used to build an airstrip.
    2. A witness who was detained in Kalimantan has stated: “We have been forced to work on the construction of Government buildings for meagre remuneration. Often we have to work as “volunteers” and receive nothing at all. The officers use us as servants to wash dishes and clothes and to clean out the toilets. If you care to earn Rp. 75 (US $0,18) a day you can work day and night on the construction of the Balikpapan Airport. There are hundreds of other odd jobs we have to do for the officers, far too many to mention them all.”
  9. Enslavement in Central Java:
    1. On Nusakambangan Island, 5,000 people are recorded to have been enslaved in 1970 and 7,000-10,000 in 1972.
    2. At Platungan women’s prison camp, 600 people are recorded to have been enslaved in 1972.
  10. Enslavement in East Java:
    1. 3,971 people are recorded to have been enslaved in several prisons.
    2. Extensive use of prison labour for road-building and other projects has been recorded.
  11. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 2: Enslavement, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 3

IMPRISONMENT

  1. The State of Indonesia, acting individually or in concert with other organisations, arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned large numbers of members, followers and sympathisers of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and PKI-affiliated organizations without trial.
  2. Imprisonment refers to the arbitrary deprivation of an individual’s liberty without due process of law. The customary status of the prohibition of arbitrary imprisonment under international law initially developed from the laws of war. Since the Nuremberg Charter, (arbitrary) imprisonment is a listed crime under CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and supported by many human rights instruments. Arbitrary detention without a warrant or trial is inter alia prohibited under Article 9 of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statute.
  3. Hardly any of the people imprisoned were given a warrant for their arrest and they were forced to endure horrible conditions in overcrowded camps or prisons.
  4. Many people perished during their imprisonment.
  5. Estimates on the number of people imprisoned vary widely. Amnesty International stated in 1977 that the approximate figure was around 1 million.
  6. Psychologists divided prisoners into categories A, B and C based on an assessment of their apparent level of communist loyalty. The prisoners’ categorisation was usually an indication of whether they would survive and thus the psychologists in essence were performing the role of judges.
    1. Category A prisoners were considered to be directly involved with the PKI and were executed.
    2. Category B prisoners were imprisoned for periods of up to 14 years, often perishing due to poor conditions. Many Category B prisoners were shipped to Buru Island prison camp. In Timor, most Category B prisoners were executed with Category A prisoners.
    3. Category C prisoners were gradually released after a number of years. Their release depended solely on arbitrary instructions from Kopkamtib. In 1975 a Presidential Decree was issued further classifying prisoners into categories C1, C2 and C3.
  7. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 3: Imprisonment, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 4

TORTURE

  1. The State of Indonesia through its military forces committed, facilitated, encouraged and condoned the widespread torture of members, followers and sympathisers of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and PKI-affiliated organizations in the period between 1965-1979.
  2. Torture comprises the infliction, by an act or omission, of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. While torture is prohibited under Article 9(6) of Law No. 26, it does not as far as defining what would constitute torture. In this respect, Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute offers means of interpretation, defining torture as “the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused.”
  3. In many cases, the torture carried out by Indonesia’s military forces led to death. Sometimes death was a result of the torture itself and at other times death occurred due to wounds sustained during torture being left untreated.
  4. Most acts of torture were carried out during or after arrest of victims to obtain information from the victim or to punish, threaten, humiliate or intimidate the victim and others. Sometimes torture was carried out to force a victim to change their political loyalty.
  5. Victims were tortured in their homes, detention centres or in public places.
  6. The torture took place in a widespread and systematic manner. Data collected by IPT 1965 researchers records 235 victims of torture. This includes 4 counts of sexual violence, 187 counts of forced labour and 8 counts of extortion to secure release. 173 of these torture victims were forced to continue reporting to authorities on a regular basis after they had been released.
  7. The acts of torture which took place included:
    1. Burning parts of the body
    2. Application of electric shocks
    3. Various forms of water torture
    4. Sexual abuse
    5. Pulling out fingernails
    6. Forcing victims to drink soldiers’ urine
    7. Rubbing chili in the eyes of victims
    8. Tying victims inside a sack with a snake
    9. Cutting off victims’ ears and forcing them to consume them
  8. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 4: Torture, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 5

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

  1. The State of Indonesia, through its security forces, committed, facilitated, encouraged and condoned sexual violence towards members, followers and sympathisers of the PKI and PKI-affiliated organizations.
  2. As demonstrated by the evidence collected by Komnas HAM and testimonies of witnesses, widespread sexual violence including rape, sexual torture, sexual enslavement and forced abortions took place during massacres and mass political detentions after 1 October 1965.
  3. Article 9(7) of Law No. 26, as read with Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute define sexual violence as rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilisation or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity.
  4. The sexual violence in Indonesia was part of a widespread and systematic attack against civilians who were, or who were perceived to be, members, followers or sympathisers of the PKI. There is also evidence that the perpetrators knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  5. The sexual violence was perpetrated in conditions of extreme coercion, force or threat, whereby the victims were deprived of their liberty, and held illegally and without just cause in detention by members of the security services and their proxies.
  6. Members of the security services and their proxies predominantly perpetrated the sexual violence against female detainees, whenever and against whomever the security services desired.
  7. This sexual violence was perpetrated across many regions of Indonesia against an unknown but very large number of victims.
  8. According to research conducted in 2007 by the National Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (“Komnas Perempuan”), the security forces were able to perpetrate sexual violence without any attempts by their superiors to prevent these crimes or punish the perpetrators.
  9. Komnas Perempuan has found evidence of women being treated as the possessions and/or sexual commodities of security force personnel, which constitutes sexual slavery. Further, both women and men were routinely forced to undress whenever they were interrogated or beaten.
  10. The sexual violence took place in a wide range of settings including victims’ homes, public spaces, prisons, police or military barracks, and in the many ad-hoc facilities used to hold people who were detained following the 1965 coup.
  11. Some acts of the sexual violence were perpetrated as single assaults, whereas other victims experienced repeated assaults or even forced prostitution or marriage, which lasted months or even years.
  12. The experience of one victim, Mrs A., which is taken from a 2007 report by Komnas Perempuan was as follows: “I started to feel feverish because my breasts were beginning to swell with milk. I asked the guards for pain killers. I was taken out of the cell and told to bathe at the well near my cell. After bathing I was given a batik cloth and white shirt, and was taken to the room near the guard house. In that room there was a bed and a small table. I was told to sit down and was given medicine and a glass of water. I was lying down on the bed and immediately fell into a deep sleep. Suddenly I was awakened. I was not aware that I had been stripped naked. A tall, large man was raping me quite violently. I felt incredible pain. Blood started pouring from my vagina. Then another man came, he was tall and skinny. He raped me very violently; he didn’t care about the blood that kept flowing from my vagina. I didn’t know what happened to me after the third man. He was short and fat. His heavy body was crushing me, and he was biting my swollen breasts. I fell unconscious. When I woke up, I was back in my cell. For one month I was at that detention site, four times I was taken away at night to serve the soldiers. What more they went from one cell to the next looking for their prey. Normally they would look for prisoners who were young and beautiful. We could not refuse, nor could we escape these practices.’(pages 96-97 of Komnas Perempuan report 2007).
  13. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 5: Sexual violence, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 6

PERSECUTION

  1. The State of Indonesia committed persecution against hundreds of thousands of Indonesian nationals who were abroad between 1965-1967 in the form of depriving them of their right to return safely to their country of origin. The persecuted people were mostly students, government officials, journalists or other officials sent overseas by the Sukarno government, as well as Indonesian people invited by foreign governments to attend official commemorations or national ceremonies in various parts of the world.
  2. Whilst an offence charged before the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the elements of this offence received limited elaboration prior to the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunals. Persecution clearly includes an act and/or omission which discriminates in fact and which denies or infringes upon a fundamental right laid down in customary international or treaty law.
  3. In Article 9(9) of Law No. 26, as read with Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statue defines persecution as the commission of any act referred to in Article 9 of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7 of the Rome Statue against any identifiable group of collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. Article 7(2)(g) further defines persecution as the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.
  4. In this case, the act contravening international law was the revocation of these people’s Indonesian nationality, because they were considered to be alleged communists by the new Suharto government. This meant that they were effectively subject to arbitrary exile, which contravenes Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  5. The persecution was widespread as it took place all over the world and systematic because it was implemented through Indonesian embassies abroad.
  6. The Indonesian embassies abroad used several instruments to determine whether Indonesian nationals living abroad were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the Suharto regime, and therefore whether they would

be allowed to retain their nationality. One such instrument consisted of forms filled out by students and other Indonesian about whether they were still loyal to Sukarno’s government.

  1. Although control and surveillance of Indonesian nationals took place through all Indonesian embassies, people residing in communist-leaning countries were most frequently summoned to be screened.
  2. Indonesian nationals screened by the embassies were asked to provide:
    1. Their place of origin in Indonesia.
    2. The names of their parents and other family members.
    3. Where they lived.
    4. Where they worked.
    5. Which political party they were a member of.
  3. Many Indonesian nationals living abroad became aware of the violence and disappearances happening in Indonesia and those who were loyal to Sukarno were afraid and unwilling to report to the embassies for the sake of their own safety and that of their families. The passports of all people who refused to report for screening were immediately revoked.
  4. An announcement signed on 1 April 1966 stated the names of 25 Indonesians residing in the Soviet Union whose passports had been revoked. The announcement also put forth that ‘the Indonesian community in the Soviet Union should not give any help to these persons, both material and moral nature’
  5. In Albania, an Indonesian national by the name of Chalik Hamid (born in 1938) reported that his passport was revoked after the overthrow of the Sukarno government and his wife who he had left in Indonesia was arrested. He has since moved to the Netherlands and is the now the Editor of Yayasan Sejarah dan Budaya Indonesia.
  6. In Romania, an official letter revoking the passports of Indonesian nationals considered be ‘dangerous for the Indonesian nation’, was dated the 24th of March 1967 and signed by the Indonesian Ambassador in Romania, Major General Sambas Atmadinata. The passports of a total of 13 students were revoked in this letter.
  7. In Bulgaria, a witness named Aminah testified that the process of screening and revocation of passports occurred rather differently from that in Romania. In 1966 students received invitations to attend meetings at the Embassy in Sofia, which were numerous and lengthy. The Embassy requested the students’ passports with the excuse that they would soon receive new passports, however only those who submitted statements of support for the new Suharto government got their passports back.
  8. In Czechoslovakia, the passports of 15 people were revoked. Of these people, 12 were staff of the PPI (Indonesian Student Association) and three were organisers of the PPI Europe who had made a statement against the Suharto takeover. Many PPI members who were not staff members were also unable to return to Indonesia as they did not feel comfortable visiting the Embassy to extend their passports, which expired after a number of years.
  9. In Cuba, the passports of students were revoked as well as representatives who had come to Cuba to attend the Tri Continental Conference in January 1966. Ibrahim Isa, who at the time was a representative of the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organisation, attended the conference with nine Indonesian students. Not long after he presented at the conference he was declared a Gestapu agent and his passport was immediately revoked. He remained in Cuba for some time before moving to China for his own safety. He received news that his wife and three children living in Jakarta would be arrested to force him to return to Indonesia, however through the help of friends he was able to safely reunite with his family in Cairo.
  10. There have since been attempts by Indonesian Embassies abroad to trace where those whose passports were revoked have ended up, however this has not been an easy task as many of them have already died and others have moved to multiple places so their residency cannot be detected.
  11. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 6: Persecutions, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 7

ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS

  1. The State of Indonesia enforced the disappearance of persons suspected to be members, followers or sympathisers of the PKI or PKI-affiliated organisations, beginning in mid-October 1965.
  2. Enforced disappearance of persons is listed as an underlying offence under CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY under Article 9(10) of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7(1)(i) of the Rome Statute, which pursuant to Article 7(2)(i) defines it as the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organisation, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
  3. Above provisions define the enforced disappearance of persons is defined as “the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organisation, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.”
  4. The disappearances in Indonesia were carried out by the Buterpra and Komando Aksi and the victims were taken to military Buterpra offices, the local Operation Command offices or other temporary holding places.
  5. Disappearances at the plantation level mainly took place between October and December 1965, but some continued until March 1966.
  6. One victim of enforced disappearance was the Governor of Bali, Anak Agung Bagus Sutedja, who disappeared on 29 July 1966. He was picked up by a military officer who informed him that he had been invited to meet with Captain Teddy at the Garnizun Office, Medan Merdeka, in Jakarta. However, he was never heard from again and his whereabouts are unknown until the present day. Before disappearing, he had been suspected to be a member of the PKI, even though he had previously informed Sukarno that he was not a PKI member.
  7. By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 7: Enforced disappearances, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

COUNT 8

PERSECUTION THROUGH PROPAGANDA

100.The State of Indonesia is responsible for using propaganda and hate speeches as part of the widespread and/or systematic attack against the members and sympathisers of the PKI and PKIaffiliated organisations, and/or civilian population in Indonesia from 1965 onwards by spreading hate propaganda via various instruments

101.On 1 October 1965, the State of Indonesia immediately started a discriminatory campaign against members of the PKI and their sympathisers through its policy and military units, which led to and supported the planning and preparation for murder of the PKI members and/or followers, non-PKI members/followers, Indonesia-Chinese population, and/or other civilian population in Indonesia.

102.The propaganda against the target group was part of the broader widespread and systematic attack against a significant part of the civilian population who were persecuted because of their alleged affiliation with the PKI and thus persecuted and discriminated on political grounds. That hate propaganda intended to discriminate, as well as to dehumanise the target group and laid down the basis for the mass atrocities committed against them.

103.As referred to above, Article 9(9) of Law No. 26, as read with Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statue define persecution as the commission of any act referred to in Article 9 of Law No. 26 as read with Article 7 of the Rome Statue against any identifiable group of collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. Article 7(2)(g) further defines persecution as the intentional

and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.

104.In the morning of 1 October 1965, General Suharto accused the PKI as the mastermind behind the incident. General Umar Wirahadikusumah announced that no print media should be published except army-owned newspapers, namely Berita Yudha and Angkatan Bersenjata starting on 1 October 1965. Army-controlled national radio station was used as the only source of official information of the G30S. Further, on 1 October 1965 a verbal instruction was issued by President Sukarno appointing General Suharto as the Commander in Charge for restoring Security and Order.

105.On 2 October 1965, PKI-owned newspaper Harian Rakyat and PNI-affiliated newspaper were published ignoring the army’s pronouncement and showing their support towards G30S instead. On 10 October 1965 Kopkamtib was formed.

106.In October 1965 and onwards, anti-communist campaign was carried out by newspapers Angkatan Bersenjata, Berita Yudha as well as independent Api Pancasila and others, accusing the PKI and its affiliated organisations as the mastermind behind G30S including slander such as: betrayers of the nation; atheist; hyper-sexual and sexually perverse; immoral; sadistic; demonic.

107.Through a radio campaign, the State of Indonesia was engaged in inciting people to conduct anticommunist violent demonstrations via both national (“RRI”) and amateur radios.

108.Further, a campaign of sexual slander was employed portraying the PKI as sexually immoral by means of a slander campaign targeted at the girls present at Lubang Buaya, the place where the initial murders of the generals were committed. The girls were accused of having seduced the generals in a lurid, naked dance, the ‘Dance of the Fragrant Flowers’, while they were singing the song ‘Genjer-genjer’, and of having castrated the generals, and of killing them after gouging out their eyes. Later, the PKI was accused of training the girls for such acts in orgies.

109.Having been engaged in a hate propaganda for several weeks through various printed media, the military began to introduce the official version of the incident. Under the command of Army Commander General Nasution, the military historian, Nugroho Notosusanto, created the first comprehensive account on what happened in the night of 30 September 1965 which was published in December 1965. According to this account, which later was revised in RAND corporation under the supervision of CIA agent Guy Pauker, the initial murder of the generals was a PKI plot through which the communists would seize power from the government by killing seniors army officers. Nugroho begins his account by repeating General Suharto’s accusation of the PKI as the mastermind behind the incident, followed by constructing the motives behind the PKI’s action in conducting G30S. The account also provides details of PKI’s alleged plan of carrying out a coup against the government picturing the PKI’s leaders as a bunch of ambitious politicians who planned to seize power from the president. This manuscript became the main source of the New Order’s historical narrative and used as the only guide for the development of the nation. Then elaborated into other cultural domain.

110.Among others, the PKI was accused of being a party that had always betrayed the nation by emphasizing the so-called ‘Madiun affair’ when communist troops revolted. Other relevant historical events however, e.g. revolt by Muslim hardliners, were fully ignored.

111.Moreover, in the years following the G30S incident the new government under General Suharto began to conduct various cultural projects based on the Nugroho account such as:

  1. The establishment of the Sacred Pancasila monument and museum.
  2. The creation of dioramas and reliefs depicting the demonic character of the PKI.
  3. The creation of commemoration days and ceremonies as rituals to remind the society of the sadistic action of the PKI and, on the contrary, to praise the military as well as emphasising the tragedy experienced by the military victims.
  4. Material for upgrading courses.
  5. Student handbooks.

112.The propaganda campaign against the PKI continued by utilising other cultural form such as arts including film and literature:

  1. Films: Pengkhinatan G30S/PKI (1984 broadcast every year and compulsory for everyone to watch) and other complementary propaganda films such as Janur Kuning (Yellow Coconut Leaf), Serangan Fajar (The Dawn Attack), Enam Jam di Jogja (Six Hours in Jogja) and Jakarta 1966: Sejarah Perintah 11 Maret (Jakarta 1966: History of 11 March Authorisation).
  2. Literature: the literary magazines Horison and Sastra published at least 10 stories surrounding the 1965 events depicting the PKI as evil entity, betrayer of the nation and therefore worth to be crushed. In the meantime, various cultural essays were also published in order to stigmatise the PKI as the ultimate enemies of the State. Furthermore, a novel was also produced in order to broaden hate propaganda targeting the PKI, notably the work of literary figure Arswendo Atmowiloto, an adaptation of the film Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI.
  3. Folklores: various folklores surrounding the 1965 events were also produced and spread within the society in order to create hatred against the PKI and communism in general.

113.The campaign of hate propaganda against the PKI and its associated organisations was further institutionalised in educational programmes. The lies became educational material, pupils and students were compelled to watch the film ‘the betrayal of the PKI’ every year .

114.By these acts and/or omissions, the State of Indonesia is internationally responsible for:

COUNT 8: Persecution through propaganda, as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

Additionally, the Prosecution of the International People’s Tribunal on 1965 Crimes Against Humanity in Indonesia charges:

the United States of America the United Kingdom and Australia

with the commission of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and violations of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW provisions by knowingly aiding and assisting the State of Indonesia in serious breaches of international law, as set forth below:

COUNT 9

COMPLICITY OF OTHER STATES IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

115.Knowledge of massacres carried out by troops and militias under the direct command of the Army under General Suharto was widespread. Various embassies reported regularly to their countries, reporters covered various massacres. Nevertheless, several Western countries, notably the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia provided small arms, radio communications, money and even lists of people they would like to see eliminated. In so doing, they knowingly aided and assisted the State of Indonesia in the commission of the above specified CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

116.The above States provided the State of Indonesia with direct means assisting the massacres, as well as the crucial means facilitating the communication with troops in remote areas. It also assisted the Government’s campaign of hate propaganda. Consequently, the States mentioned above were engaged in direct complicity, by providing necessary equipment and services.

117.Additionally, the States referred to above were engaged in beneficial complicity, as the foreign companies, which under the previous government faced several limitations in their operations were again welcomed in Indonesia. Further, trade unions previously fighting for workers’ benefits were destroyed.

118.By these acts and/or omissions, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia are internationally responsible for:

COUNT 9: Complicity in the commission of murder, enslavement, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution and enforced disappearance of persons, as CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

2017-04-23T21:15:54+00:00 October 28th, 2015|Categories: Opinion|Comments Off on 1965 TRIBUNAL HEARINGS: The Indictment