Narrative Report of the IPT 1965

The rationale for setting up an International People’s Tribunal is thus that, despite overwhelming evidence of the CAH committed in and after 1965, the Indonesian government has failed to end the impunity of the perpetrators and redress the stigma suffered by victims till today. The primary responsibility lies with the State of Indonesia, both for its actions and for its continuing failure over the last 50 years: 1) to investigate the extent and the nature of these crimes; 2) to prosecute perpetrators of all ranks; 3) to offer an official and sincere apology; and (3) to provide reparations and other meaningful remedies for victims and their families. This failure and unwillingness to act has persisted in spite of repeated demands made especially since the end of the Suharto regime in 1998, which saw the beginning of the so called ‘Reformasi’ era. These demands were made by victims and human rights activists, as well as by scholars, based on their careful research confirming the atrocities committed by the military and militia.

In the first months after the March 2013 meeting in Den Haag a small working team was formed to draft a Concept Note and appoint a research coordinator (Saskia Wieringa) and secretaria. As well media teams (led by Lea Pamungkas) were set up in Jakarta and The Netherlands. The IPT 1965 became a legal entity (a foundation) on 18 March 2014. In 2015 prosecutors and prospective judges were approached, the indictment was prepared and the hearings were held. Socialization of the IPT 1965 idea and concept was conducted in some cities, and evidence (documents, film, testimonies) was collected.

The main objective of the Foundation IPT 1965 is to address the failure of the Indonesian state to meaningfully address the CAH committed after 1 October 1965. There must be an end to the silencing of the voices of victims and their families; and the government of Indonesia must not be allowed to escape accountability for these CAH.

The Foundation aims to redress the historic tendency to trivialize, excuse, marginalize and obfuscate these CAH, particularly the rapes and other forms of sexual violence and torture of women prisoners. Further, Foundation IPT 1965 has been established out of the belief, expressed by the surviving victims who are now in the last stages of their lives, that acknowledging and assigning responsibility for the crimes will help to ensure that they live out their remaining years in greater dignity, peace and security. And finally, the suffering of the arbitrary revocation of their passports experienced by thousands of Indonesian people who refused to support the ‘New Order’ of President Suharto, must be acknowledged as a crime against humanity.

Since 2013 the preparatory activities, in the Netherlands but more importantly in Indonesia, were conducted with the aim of holding the tribunal on November 10-13, 2015 in the Hague. The year 2015 marks 50 years of silence in relation to these crimes. Due to considerations of safety, the Tribunal could not be held in Indonesia. The Hague was chosen because the city is well known as a symbol for international justice and peace. The Peace Palace is located there, as well as the International Criminal Court. Several important special courts have been held there or had their secretariats in the city, such as the Yugoslav Tribunal. The Tokyo Tribunal (Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery) held its judgment session in The Hague (2001).

Fighting impunity

The IPT 1965 was established to end the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of the CAH committed in Indonesia in and after 1965. Impunity involves a ‘failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried, and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations’. (Orentlicher, Diane, 2005, Report of the independent expert to update the Set of Principles to Combat Impunity. E/CN.4/2005.102. add.1.p.7.) The key words thus are the right to truth, to justice, to rehabilitation and the guarantee of non-recurrence. Even in the more liberal Reformasi era (after the fall of dictator Suharto in 1998), the Indonesian State has done virtually nothing to guarantee these rights.

The State has made no effort to assess the truth about the CAH committed in the aftermath of the army purge/coup attempt of the September 30th group and has not followed up on the recommendations of the 2012 report of the National Commission of Human Rights. It has blocked the Indonesian people from knowing the truth about these crimes against humanity. It has not provided justice to the victims or any form of rehabilitation (with the exception of isolated efforts of individual office bearers, such as in Poso in Sulawesi). The President, Mr Joko Widodo (in office since 20 October 2014), promised to deal with past human rights violations, including those related to 1965, during his election campaign. This is explicitly mentioned in his programme, the Nawacita (literally nine aspirations). However, this issue was subsequently dropped from his list of priorities.

Attorney General, HM Prasetyo, declared that a ‘permanent solution’ should be sought for past human rights violations including the ‘1965 tragedy’ (The Jakarta Post, May 22, 2015). This solution, however, would be sought in reconciliation only. Thus, the Government of Indonesia ignores the phase of truth finding, without which reconciliation has little value. Truth finding must be taken seriously in order to restore the dignity of victims and their families and correct historical memory.. This will strengthen the rule of law in Indonesia and help ensure that such atrocities do not recur.

However, besides thwarting or prohibiting all efforts to find out the extent of the mass crimes against humanity committed after October 1, 1965, the Government of Indonesia has also effectively banned all discussions on socialist themes. In 1966, the study of Marxism, Leninism and Communism was prohibited, and the Indonesian Communist Party and all its affiliated organizations were banned (decree XXV/1966 of the MPRS, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara, Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly). During the New Order regime, established by General Suharto (1966-1998), this ban extended to all pro-democratic movements and mass organizations. History textbooks for school children were rewritten by the military and have still not been revised; nor has the ban been revised or abolished.

After the fall of Suharto and his regime in 1998, the so called Reformasi period, progress on past human rights violations has been very uneven. A promising sign was the decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (V/2000) to enact the Truth and Reconciliation Law. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the law, arguing that the law did not provide any legal certainty and justice for victims – rather it blocked their right to legal remedies, other than reconciliation.

As already mentioned, in 2012 the National Human Rights Report on the systematic and widespread crimes against humanity in 1965-66 was completed. This landmark report is based on the results of an investigation conducted in four regions between 2008-2012 (Maumere, Maluku, South Sumatera and North Sumatera) and the collection of testimonies of 349 witnesses and survivors. Although the report does not attempt to extrapolate numbers of victims nationwide, overwhelming evidence is given of ‘widespread and systematic’ killings, exterminations, enslavement and forced labor, forced eviction and banishments, arbitrary deprivation of freedom, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence and enforced disappearances. These crimes are defined as crimes against humanity according to Law number 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts.

The Commission acknowledges that the victims were targeted for their alleged ties with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI, Partai Komunis Indonesia) and recognizes the Indonesian State as the mastermind of the crimes, underlining that ‘these events are the result of state policy to exterminate members and sympathizers of the PKI which was deemed to have conducted resistance against the state.’

The Commission recommended a follow-up criminal investigation by the Attorney General, the establishment of an ad hoc human rights court to try the alleged perpetrators, and the establishment by the government of a non-judicial truth and reconciliation commission as stipulated in Law number 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts. However, the Commission’s report was rejected by the Attorney General, with the argument that the findings of the Commission were legally inadequate and insufficient. The government, at the time represented by the Coordinating Minister of Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Djoko Suyanto, rejected the evidence presented as well, adding that the 1965 mass killings were justified as they were aimed at ‘saving the country’ (The Jakarta Post, October 1, 2012). Likewise, 23 civil society groups, including Ansor, the youth wing of the largest Muslim mass organization, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which played a key role in the killings, also rejected the report, affirming their continuing determination to protect Indonesian from a ‘Communist atheist threat’ (The Jakarta Post, 15 and 16 August 2012 5 The Jakarta Post, September 30, 2013).

However, the UN Human Rights Council, during the 2013 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) meeting at its Headquarters in Geneva, made a recommendation to set up a joint investigation team to review and follow up on the Commission’s findings on the 1965crimes against humanity and to sort out the disagreement on technicalities between the two institutions.5 This recommendation has so far not been followed up. These reactions by the government at the time make it was clear that the domestic mechanisms to act on the recommendations of the Commission’s 2012 report are inadequate.

Indonesia has not only frustrated national efforts at truth finding but also violated its international obligations. Indonesia acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 2006. Implementation of and adherence to the rights enshrined in the ICCPR by State authorities is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). Among others, Indonesia was requested to indicate, before July 2014, what measures it had taken to address impunity for past human rights violations. To date no such report has been submitted by Indonesia. The HRC also considered gross human rights violations committed before 2006 which have not been properly investigated by the government authorities as ongoing and continuing violations of human rights. Under present day international human rights law, in particular the ICCPR, States are obliged to investigate gross human rights violations, to prosecute those responsible and punish them if found guilty, and to provide reparation to the victims. This obligation also exists for violations which occurred before 2006, including the 1965 massacres.

The HRC first examined and reported on Indonesia’s fulfillment of its obligations under the ICCPR in 2013. The HRC found a number of issues required immediate attention. Indonesia was requested to indicate, before July 2014, what measures it had taken to address impunity for past human rights violations. To date no such report has been submitted by Indonesia. Therefore, it is fully legitimate to continue to put pressure on the Indonesian government to live up to its international law obligations.

International attention to the culture of impunity in Indonesia was also generated when the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held its fifty- second session in 2012. The Committee expressed its deep concern that sexual violence, especially rape, has reportedly been a recurring form of violence against women during conflict situations, including the events of 1965 and after. The CEDAW recommended that,1) the State should promptly investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of violence against women, including acts of sexual violence, perpetrated by private actors and by the security and defense forces, the police and militant groups, ensuring that inquiries are conducted exhaustively, impartially and transparently; 2) provide full and effective reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, to all victims of human rights violations committed during the conflicts; 3) take comprehensive measures to provide support to women victims of violence, including sexual violence, committed during the conflicts, and establish counselling centres for women to overcome their traumatic experiences; 4) adopt the new draft law providing for the establishment of a national truth and reconciliation commission and to ensure that the commission has broad powers to receive complaints and investigate grave human rights violation. To date there has been no follow up on these recommendations.

In relation to compensation to the victims, very limited progress has been made. The enactment of the Law on Witness and Victims Protection was a positive sign. It was accompanied by the provision of a health allowance for victims of the ‘events of 1965’. A few local authorities (Palu, Solo), as well as the church in Kupang, have recognized this provision.

On a limited scale, memorialisation processes have been instigated by non-governmental actors. These include the production of some documentary films, such as Jembatan Bacem (Elsam, 2013), The Act of Killing, 2012, and its sequel, The Look of Silence,2014), (both by Joshua Oppenheimer), The Women and the Generals, 2012, (Maj Wechselmann). Certain mass graves have become sites of memory, such as in Semarang (Plumbon). Several authors have written novels, for example, ‘Amba’ by Lakshmi Pamuntjak, ‘Home’ by Leila Chudori, and ‘The Crocodile Hole’ by Saskia Wieringa. There were other artistic productions related to the theme in various forms, such as prose, poem, theater and song.

Very limited steps have been set on the path towards non-recurrence. These include the inclusion of a Human Rights section in the 1945 Constitution (2000) and the ratification of key international human rights treaties, as well as the enactment of national human rights laws and a human rights court (2006). Also, oversight agencies have been established (Ombudsman, Judicial Commission, Police Oversight Commission, Prosecutor Oversight Commission). Limited efforts at the needed reform of the security sector are underway. The military are prohibited from involvement in politics, and the police has been separated from the military. The subject of human rights has been included in the curriculum of training courses and internal regulations of the police and the military. But the Rome Statute has still not been signed and ratified. Moreover, overall implementation of progressive legal and institutional changes has been poor.

Acknowledgements

The hearings could not have been held without the financial and other support we received. The institutional donors cannot be recognized for political reasons, apart from the Foundation ́Solidariteit en Weerbaarheid ́. We also received support from many private people through our crowd funding campaign. Still we were dependent on the contributions both in time and in kind of the many students, human rights activists and researchers who supported us.

2. Historical background: the ‘events of 1965’

The CAH started a few days after a group of middle-ranking army officers, strong supporters of President Sukarno and a few PKI leaders, calling themselves the September 30th Movement, abducted and murdered six top generals of the army and one lieutenant, during the night of 30 September 1965. It claimed to have taken President Sukarno under its protection to prevent a military coup against him. General Suharto, whose role in the period leading to the actions of the 30 September Movement so far is unclear, took control of the army and quickly aborted this attempted purge. This episode, hereafter, is referred to as the ‘events of 1965’.

General Suharto immediately blamed the whole PKI and its mass organizations for the killing of the generals. In October 10, he established the Command for Restoration of Secu- rity and Order (Kopkamtib), an extra-constitutional security and intelligence agency in charge of political prosecution and control, with extra-legal powers to outlaw the PKI and hunt down and arrest its members and sympathizers. Following the establishment of KOPKAMTIB, a mass campaign of sexual slander was organized in which members of the progressive women’s organization, Gerwani, were accused of having castrated the generals. This was accompanied by a campaign of terror against suspected Communists and alleged associates, including socialist women, leftwing activists, progressive artists and intellectuals, members of peasant groups and labour unions, and members of the Chinese community. In addition, adherents of popular culture and members of indigenous religions were harassed; many of them were imprisoned and/or killed. In 1966 Suharto managed to oust President Sukarno, and the following year he was inaugurated as the new President. He established a repressive military regime which lasted until 1998.

The propaganda campaign rolled out by the military and its associates immediately after the abduction and murder of the six generals and one lieutenant in the early morning of October 1, 1965 was so pervasive and successful that up till now the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and its affiliate organizations are associated with atheism, unspeakable cruelty, sexual perversion and the inherent intention to destroy the nation. These insidious myths are persistent and have been propagated via all kinds of cultural genres (Herlambang, Wijaya, 2011, Cultural violence: its practice and challenge in Indonesia. PhD thesis, University of Queensland)

A core element of the campaign were the stories fabricated around the presence of young girls of the Communist Youth Movement (PR, Pemuda Rakyat), and a few members of the women’s movement Gerwani, at the field where the abducted generals were killed. They were accused of having seduced (in a lurid dance) and castrated the generals. This smear campaign inflamed the hatred of religious and other anti-Communist groups against the Communist Party and destroyed the women’s movement (See Saskia E. Wieringa, 2002, Sexual Politics in Indonesia. Houndmills: Palgrave and MacMillan). This ludicrous story has never officially been withdrawn and lingers on. The events of 1965 are still surrounded by taboo and secrecy. Generations of school children have been fed these lies. The general public still believes them and prefers not to discuss this period in the history of their nation.

From late October 1965 onwards the army trained and armed militia units and recruited religious groups, student organizations and right wing trade unions to implement the massacres. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were murdered, imprisoned, tortured and raped, many of whom disappeared. Between October 1965 and March 1966, it is reliably estimated that between 500,000 and one million people were killed, and more than 1.7 million people were imprisoned without trial. The campaign of terror did not stop then, though it slowed down. Moreover, the so called ‘New Order’ of President Suharto revoked the passports of thousands of students and PKI sympathizers studying and working overseas who refused to support this government. For years many of them were stateless and suffered from uncertainty about their status before they finally got asylum from the Netherlands and other European countries.

The army and its allied groups committed this genocide and other crimes against humanity at the height of the Cold War. Western countries, particularly the US, Great Britain and Australia, were relieved that the leader of an important Asian country, who in their eyes was leaning towards the left, had been removed from power. Though they were aware that a horrible tragedy was taking place in Indonesia, they kept silent and even actively, though secretly, supported the army.

Before the National Human Rights Commission investigated the background and implementation of the genocide and other crimes against humanity, there were several civil society organizations that had researched the crimes and challenged the official version of national history imposed by Suharto. Some of them have been active in building peace at the grass roots level such as Syarikat, Lakpesdam NU (Lembaga Kajian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia, Institute for the teaching and Development of Human Resources of the Council of Muslim Scholars), KontraS (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan, Commission for Disappeared People and Victims of Violence), Elsam, KKPK (Koalisi Keadilan dan Pengungkapan Kebenaran, Coalition for Justice and the Revelation of Truth, YLBHI (Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia, Foundation of Institutes of Legal Aid in Indonesia), ISSI (Institut Sejarah Sosial Indonesia, Indonesian Institute for Social History), JPIT (Jaringan Perempuan Indonesia Timur, Women ́s Network in Eastern Indonesia) and LPH YAPHI (Lembaga Pengabdian Hukum Yekti Angudi Piyadeging Hukum Indonesia, (Institute for the Devotion to Justice, Truly Searching for the Uprightness of Indonesian Law).

3. Jurisdiction and procedure

The jurisdiction of the International People’s Tribunal on 1965 Crimes Against Humanity in Indonesia is defined in its Public Statement of October 17, 2015 (Annex 1). As a People’s Tribunal, its power lies in the capacity to examine evidence, develop an accurate historical record of the CAH committed and apply principles of international customary law to the facts as found. Further, this Tribunal steps into the lacuna left by the State of Indonesia, but it does not purport to replace the role of the State of Indonesia in the legal process. The experiences of other International People’s Tribunals are that they contribute to creating a climate of respect for human rights and to the healing process of the victims and their families.

The Statement declares that the Tribunal had an obligation to state clearly, based on the evidence presented, whether each charge was supported by sufficient evidence or whether there was insufficient evidence upon which to make such a determination. The International People’s Tribunal 1965 derived its power from the voices of victims and of national and international civil societies. It had the format of a formal human rights court. It was not a criminal court in the sense that individual persons were indicted. The evidence presented consisted of documents, (audio)visual materials, witness statements and other recognized legal means.

The Tribunal had the form of a Tribunal of Inquiry. The judges would produce a final verdict in 2016 based on the materials presented during the hearings in November 2015 and call upon the State of Indonesia to realize that so far they have failed to take legal and moral responsibility for the victims. This verdict will also be used as a basis for challenging the history text books for school children, and for other purposes to help counter the hate propaganda produced by the Suharto regime. It will also be used as a lobbying document for a UN Resolution on these crimes.

Ultimately, over 100 volunteers helped to organize the Tribunal, including researchers from all over the world, the media teams in Jakarta and The Netherlands, and many Indonesian students from all over Europe who helped during the hearings. The formal organs of the Foundation IPT 1965 were the Board of the Foundation itself, the Organizing Committee (OC), and the International Steering Committee. Indispensable political and legal advice was provided by the Advisory Board.

The following is a list of the organs:

1. Executive Board of the Foundation IPT 1965: Saskia Wieringa (chair), Sungkono, and Sri Tunruang (treasurer). The Foundation was established in March 2014.
2. The Organizing Committee is coordinated by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana (general coordinator) and has as members Sri Tunruang, (finances), Sri Wahyaningrum (secretariat Jakarta), Artien Utrecht, Ratna Saptari and Helene van Klinken (secretariat The Netherlands), Annet van Offenbeek (security), and Saskia Wieringa (research).
3. The International Steering Committee consists of Saskia Wieringa (chair), Artien Utrecht (secretary) and members Ratna Saptari (Netherlands), Sri Tunruang (Germany), Jess Melvin (Australia), Sri Lestari Wahyuningrum (Indonesia) Annie Pohlman (Australia), Dolorosa Sinaga, Reza Muharam and Wijaya Herlambang (Indonesia), Mulyandari Alisah (France), and Soe Tjen Marching (UK).
4. The OC is run by two secretariats: 1) in Indonesia/Jakarta (YLBHI and APIK) and 2) in Netherlands/The Hague.

The secretariats are responsible for the coordination of the working groups on:

• Media and Communication: Lea Pamungkas (coordinator), Lina Sidarto, Aboepriadi Santoso, Joss Wibisono, Yusuf Sudrajat, Arief Kurniawan, Lexy, Theo Pramono, Koes Komo, Yanti Mualim, and Henri Ismail.
• Campaign and creative media: Dolorosa Sinaga (coordinator), Indra Porhas Siagian,Agnes Indraswari and Olin Monteiro
• Research and Data Collection: Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, Saskia Wieringa(coordinator), Sri Lestari Wahyuningrum, Jess Melvin, Annie Pohlman, Wijaya Herlambang and Ratna Saptari
• Indictment Preparation Committee: Nursyahbani Katjasungkana (coordinator),Antarini Arna, Todung Mulya Lubis, Agung Wijaya, Sri Suparyati, Bahrain and  Alvon Kurnia Palma. The secretariat maintains the links with the Country Coordinators, the International Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee.

Country Coordinators:

• Indonesia: YLBHI (Indonesia Secretariat), Dolorosa Sinaga, Reza Muharram
• Netherlands: Stichting IPT 1965 (Netherlands Secretariat)
• Australia: Jess Melvin and Annie Pohlman
• England: Soe Tjen Marching
• Germany: Sri Tunruang (Aachen), Arif Harsana (Munster)
• Sweden: Tom Iljas
• France: Mulyandari Alisyah,
• Belgium: Elisabeth Ida Mulyani
• Canada/USA : Ayu Ratih,
• Scotland: Maria Pakpahan
• Thailand: Dewi Ratnawulan
• Advisory Committee : Jan Pronk, Indai Sajor, Galuh Wandita, Frederiek de Vlaming, Joshua Oppenheimer, Abram de Swaan, Jan Breman, Nico Schulte-Nordholt, Ben White, Martha Meijer, Herlambang Wiratraman, Syamsiah Ahmad.

4. The Objectives of the Foundation IPT 1965

1. To ensure national and international recognition of the genocide and crimes against humanity committed in and after the ‘events of 1965’ by the State of Indonesia, as well as the complicity of certain Western countries in the army campaign against alleged supporters of the September 30th Movement;
2. To stimulate sustained national and international attention to the genocide and crimes against humanity committed by the State of Indonesia in and after the 1965 massacres and to the continued in-action of that state to bring the perpetrators to justice, among others by inviting the Special Rapporteur on Past Human Rights Violations to Indonesia.
3. In the long term: a) to contribute to the healing process of the victims and their families of the genocide and crimes against humanity in Indonesia in and after 1965; b) to contribute to the creation of a political climate in Indonesia where human rights are recognized and respected; c) to prevent the re-occurrence of violence against victims of the genocide and crimes against humanity in and after 1965 and to ensure the fair trial of perpetrators of such violence;
4. To provide a public record of the genocide and crimes against humanity committed after October 1, 1965;
5. To affirm the uncompromising hope that justice is still possible and that such atrocities will never be repeated, and to contribute to the creation of a political climate in Indonesia where human rights and rule of law are recognized and respected.

5. The road towards the hearings of the Tribunal

The major activities of the November 2015 hearings were clustered under the following headings:

5.1. Preparing the Tribunal: finalizing the research report, drafting and finalizing the indictment document and organizing the four-day Tribunal.

Information campaign and communications: improving and managing the IPT 1965 website and social media; organizing and/or participating in political and cultural events; lobbying and mobilizing media attention.

Management of the secretariats and funds (fundraising and managing relations with funders – this included crowd-funding).

Activities in preparation for the Tribunal Compiling the research report some of it in Indonesian, had become available to the prosecutors, after which it had to be edited and formatted. The report served both as input for the prosecutors and as Brief for the Panel of Judges. The final version of the research report was written and edited by Prof. Saskia Wieringa as coordinator of the research team.

5.1.2 Preparing the indictment

The indictment document was prepared by the IPT Indictment Preparation Team in Jakarta. This team consisted of legal and human rights experts and was headed by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, the IPT 1965 General Coordinator. The general coordinator and the team of prosecutors were also responsible for collecting and assessing the evidence that was provided by the witnesses as well as other matters related to them, such as arrangements for their protection. The team of prosecutors also prepared the necessary documents to prove that CAH have been committed by the state apparatus and non-state actors/paramilitary. The prosecutors’ team worked closely with the documentation team who prepared the video testimonies.

From March 2015 the team of prosecutors began to prepare the first draft of the Indictment, on the basis of the first results of the research team. This draft was discussed with a group of international law experts at a workshop 8-9 April 2015, in the Hague, organized with the help of Frederiek de Vlaming from Amsterdam University. In this two day workshop the format and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal were also discussed. The International law experts who attended had wide experience as judges, counsel or prosecutors in the ICTY and other Tribunals, such as Geoffrey Nice, Gregory Townsend, Lada Soljan and Richard J. Harvey.

On April 10, 2015 an International seminar was held in The Hague, entitled, ‘Revealing the Truth, Demanding Justice’, where Jan Pronk, Cees Flintermann, Mulya Lubis and Nursyahbani Katjasungkana presented their thoughts on the 1965 Massacres and Human Rights situation in Indonesia. Gerry van Klinken presented his research on mass killings in East Nusa Tenggara, and Martijn Eickhoff presented his research on a mass grave in Semarang. It was attended by 200 participants, among others, from Germany, France and Belgium.

While the collection of data for the research report was going on, some members of the research team were tasked with preparing case studies to help draft the nine counts or charges for the indictment.8

While writing up the Indictment, the General Coordinator conducted a series of consultations and meetings with groups of victims to prepare them to appear before the Tribunal as witnesses, as well as meetings with some expert witnesses. Direct witnesses were victims, survivors, perpetrators, or those who had directly witnessed the crimes, and expert witnesses were scholars or experts with knowledge about the crimes. For each charge or crime, we invited and prepared at least one direct and one expert witness. Ultimately, seven factual/eye witnesses appeared before the Tribunal on 10-13 November 2015.

Due to the fast deteriorating security situation prior to the hearings a number of them were forced to use a pseudonym. The witnesses were: Astaman Hasibuan (Medan), Bedjo Untung (Tangerang), Basuki Bowo (pseudonym, Jakarta), Martin Aleida (Jakarta), Kinkin Rahayu (pseudonym, Jogjakarta), Intan Permatasari (pseudonym, Kupang) and Muhammad Pakasi (Menado). While Asvi Warman Adam ( Indonesia Science Institute, Jakarta), Saskia Wieringa (Amsterdam University), Wijaya Herlambang (Jakarta), Bradley Simpson (Princeton University), Leslie Dwyer (Princeton University) Ibu Ngati (pseudonym, researcher of The nine charges/crimes are: murder; enslavement; deportation; enforced disappearances; torture; rape and other forms of sexual violence; persecution revocation of passports, persecution hate propagandas; complicity of foreign states (see below Forbidden Memories, Kupang) and Ferry Putra (pseudonym, documentary film maker) acted as expert witnesses.

The General Coordinator with the help of the OC was responsible for inviting the prosecutors and the panel of judges. The Prosecutor’s team consisted of: Antarini Arna, Uli Parulian Sihombing, Agung Wijaya, Sri Suparyati, Bahrain, and Silke Studinsky (Germany), headed by a Chief Prosecutor, Todung Mulya Lubis; The Registrar Szilvia Czevár was assisted by Sunil Pala and a team of volunteers, responsible for minutes and summaries of the hearings: Elaine Barbiers, Patrick Bek, Diana Mudrinic, Thomas Veenstra, Barry de Vries, Hammad Sarwar.

In consultation with legal experts, a list of candidate international judges was composed who were approached. Criteria used were legal expertise, gender balance, a regional spread and the potential for contributions to advocacy. The process of inviting took approximately six months. Unfortunately two candidates from Indonesia declined. The final panel of judges consisted of Geoffrey Nice, Zaak Jacobs, Helen Jarvis, Shadi Sadr, Mireille Fanon- Mendes- Farnce, John Gittings and Cees Flinterman.

In preparation for the hearings two video conference of the judges were conducted by the secretariat in The Hague on 30 September and 23 October 2015. The Public Statement in which their jurisdiction was spelled out, the arrangement of the Tribunal and other matters of procedure were discussed.

5.1.3 Selection of the venue of the Tribunal

The Secretariat approached the Peace Palace to be the venue of the Tribunal. However, our request was turned down. The Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague, a well-known and well-equipped conference center was ultimately selected and proved an excellent location.

5.1.4 The hearings

The hearings were held from 10-13 November 2015, see chapter 7 of this report. The government of Indonesia was invited to attend the Tribunal but there was no response. A professor from Leiden University, an Indonesian law expert, was invited as an Amicus Curiae, but he declined at the very last minute.

Approximately 300 participants attended the Tribunal daily, including about 30 representatives of the media, both from The Netherlands and from the international media. In order to reach out to as many people as possible, the media team organized a live streaming of all sessions of the Tribunal. In Indonesia, nobar (watching together) and discussions were organized in several cities. In Jogjakarta, the nobar was banned by a fundamentalist group and people from intelligence service. Many thousands of people all over the world watched the hearings.

Film makers and photographers were invited to make a visual documentation of the Tribunal and its background. This material will serve as documentation, educational and advocacy material. Lexy Rambadetta prepared a 15 minutes documentary film on IPT 1965 that can be used for future campaigns and will be shown during the final judgment, in Geneva.

5.2 Information campaign and communications

5.2.1 Logo competition and crowd funding
As breaking the silence around the CAH committed after 1 October 1965 is a major objective of the IPT 1965, the media teams in Jakarta and The Netherlands played a critical role. They set up a website and activated various social media accounts. They also produced brochures, posters and held a competition for creating a logo for IPT. Dolorosa led the jury and Prasetya Wahyudi was the winner. The logo shows a flower of the genjer plant as a symbol of the perseverance of the people and their oppression by the New Order regime. It was the subject of a popular song in mid-1965, and became associated with Gerwani.

A crowd funding campaign was launched to invite people to get involved to the IPT 1965 event (https://www.pifworld.com/en/projects/IPT1965/1150). This did not get many results. A more private campaign later yielded much better results. Ultimately, crowd funding became critically important as it was very difficult to get funding otherwise.

The Organizing Committee also organized various events.

5.2.2 Website

The IPT 1965 bi-lingual website www.tribunal1965.org was launched simultaneously in Amsterdam and Jakarta on 17 December 2014. The launch in Amsterdam, with a seminar, was very well attended. Among other speakers were: Martha Meijer, Nico Schulte Nordholt. See (http://1965tribunal.org/tribunal1965-org-launched-in-amsterdam/. The two events were linked by a video connection. Nursyahbani Katjasungkana welcomed the participants to both events. Presently the website address is: www.tribunal1965.org.

A soft launching of the Indonesian IPT website was held in Jakarta, at the office of the YLBHI. It was attended by 20 participants and 20 journalists. A vocal group, Dialita, consisting of family members of 1965 victims sang songs created by women prisoners of Bukit Duri and Plantungan. Tedjabayu told the audience his experiences of forced labour and torture in the concentration camp on Buru and Ibu Lucky (pseudo name) told her experience of being chased by military in Jogja/Solo, while Roichayatul Aswidah from Komnas HAM promised to support IPT 1965, since there was no progress on the Komnas HAM 2012 Report. Saskia Wieringa told the audience about sexual slander against Gerwani. Even though many journalists attended this event, there was no coverage in Indonesian newspapers. Many of the friendly journalists who had been invited later said that they had been afraid to report on the issue. Only the periodical Historia paid attention to the event (see also : http://1965tribunal.org/id/peluncuran-website-ipt-65-di-jakarta/)

The website was operated jointly by the media teams in The Netherlands and Jakarta, and served to disseminate information on the “1965 events” and the IPT 1965 campaign and Tribunal. It developed into a documentation centre/ hub and active platform for communication on issues relevant to the mass killings and the violence in 1965 and thereafter. The crucial role of the website in our information and communication strategy requires professional updating and maintenance. It has not always been easy to keep up with the capacity necessary for this, in view of the extremely limited funding available. The site has proven vulnerable to frequent attacks from hackers from several sides, particularly during the hearings in November 2015.

The IPT 1965 operates the twitter ́IPT 1965 ́ and Facebook page ́Friends of IPT 1965 ́ (mainly Indonesian) An English page is also available.

5.2.4 Events organized by IPT 1965

As mentioned above, in April 2015, IPT 1965 organized a successful public seminar in The Hague, with some prominent speakers and an audience of about 200 people.
In Europe the following events were held in preparation for the hearings:

• A seminar on the violence in 1965 with Indonesian and German students, in the first week of October 2013, in Aachen, Germany, attended by Sri Tunruang and Saskia Wieringa.
• A book launch of Leila Chudori’s book Pulang (Home, on the exiles) and seminar in Amsterdam, on 10 October 2015.
• A speaking tour through The Netherlands, Germany and France of Martin Aleida, a former political prisoner and witness during the hearings, organized by Sri Tunruang and Mulyandari.
• Events in collaboration with other organizations and/or institutions.In January-May 2015, the IPT 1965 presented its plans for the Tribunal in a variety of events organized by others, or in collaboration with others. In February, upon the invitation by Réseau Indonesie, a presentation was made and information disseminated during The Week Against Colonialism in Paris, an event organized by a number of NGOs and political parties (organized by Mulyandari).

Other events were the Human Rights Film Festival Movies that Matter in March in The Hague (Joshua Oppenheimer, Ratna Saptari and Yusuf Sudrajat) and Amsterdam (Saskia Wieringa) and the Tong Tong Festival in The Hague in May/June (Ratna Saptari and Saskia Wieringa). At those events, representatives of the IPT 1965 participated in discussion panels and talk shows. Upon invitation, a presentation of the IPT 1965 was also held at the Netherlands Institute for War Holocaust and Genocide Studies (NIOD) (Yusuf Sudrajat and Artien Utrecht).

Members of the Organizing Committee spoke at various conferences. This includes the 11-14 August 2015 conference on Southeast Asian studies organized by EUROSEAS at the University of Vienna, Austria (Artien Utrecht, Sri Tunruang). Another conference in which IPT 1965 members spoke was the 24-25 October workshop on 1965 Massacres in Bonn, in collaboration with Southeast Asian Center of the University of Bonn (Ratna Saptari and Sri Tunruang).

From September-December 2015, a series of activities was held in the context of ́50 years after 1965 ́, in Berlin, in collaboration with Watch Indonesia (postcard action, film festival and conference).

In Indonesia, there were a series of preparation meetings and consultations with the major 1965 victim’s organization YPKP 1965, Lembaga Pembelaan Korban Orde Baru (Institute for the Defense of the victims of the New Order, LP KROB), LPH YAPHI and several NGOs as well as with influential political and religious people and relevant state institutions. These were intended both to build the Jakarta secretariat and a national platform for the Tribunal. The support by the national platform thus created was crucial for advocacy activities undertaken by the IPT 1965 Secretariat in Indonesia itself. After all the core activities are mobilizing the public opinion about the genocide and the other crimes against humanity after the ́events of 1965 ́, the continued impunity for the perpetrators, and the necessity of a tribunal. This was not an easy task given the deeply rooted ignorance and enduring social stigmatization of the victims and survivors, created by a forceful state hate-propaganda campaign that has lasted for more than 30 years. Also important are the activities in support of the victims and their families in their current truth-seeking and reparation efforts.

The following efforts were undertaken:
a) In March 2013, following the meeting in The Hague where the idea of holding a People’s

Tribunal was launched, a meeting was organized at Elsam, Jakarta, which was attended by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana and a representative from Kontras. In this meeting, Elsam agreed to be the secretariat of IPT 1965 and promised to provide all their material/research results. Later, this decision was rejected by the Elsam board, though it remained supportive. Then the IPT Secretariat moved to YLBHI, Jalan Diponegoro 74, Jakarta Pusat. Since YLBHI could not provide administrative support, APIK helped to manage the administrative and financial matters with the support from volunteers (Giany Amorita & Ningrum Mayani). In August 2015 Ayu Wahyuningrum came to help the secretariat until November.

2. b)  In order to strengthen the national platform various human rights NGOs and individual activists were approached. Ultimately, the IPT 1965 received the full support of a range of civil society organizations in Indonesia as well as abroad. They include, in the first place, the organizations of victims and their families, as well as groups of exiles (abroad).
3. c)  Furthermore, the initiative was supported by leading human rights organizations, such as the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, Elsam), AJAR (Asian Justice and Rights) , KontraS, IKOHI (Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia, the Indonesian Association of the Families of the Disappeared), APIK (Indonesian Legal Aid Association for Women), LPH YAPHI and JPIT. A young, progressive group of members of the mass Muslim organization (NU, Nahdlatul Ulama), which were formerly involved in the perpetration of CAH, was also very supportive. This group, Gus Durian, is named after the popular fourth President of Indonesia, known as Gus Dur (full name, Abdurrahman Wahid), the only President so far who has expressed concern at the CAH committed in Indonesia after 1 October 1965.
4. d)  Several students group and human rights centres in various universities, such as university of Indonesia, Diponegoro University and the State University Semarang, Medan University and Airlangga University also supported the IPT 1965 idea.
5. e)  In Indonesia several media organisations were approached to give information about the IPT 1965 and the upcoming hearings. These included Kompas Daily News, Kompas TV, Tempo, Sinar Harapan, the Press Council and the Indonesian Journalists ́ Alliance. Some articles prior to the Tribunal were written in Forum Keadilan Magazine, Sinar Harapan, Tempo (mainly about the involvement of the CIA)
6. f) Last but not least, the Jakarta Secretariat along with victim organizations lobbied the Advisory Council to the President. This was not the first time lobby effort to this council, but there has been no positive response from the President. The meeting was attended by the members of the council and the chair, Mr Adiningsih. In principle, they have no objection to the idea of conducting IPT 1965. Later, the vice chair of the council, Mr Sidarto, who was the former chair of the special committee for the Truth and Reconciliation law when he was an MP, contacted Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, to offer support to the IPT 1965 and promised to provide any help needed in relation to the security of the victims. Mr T.Mulya Lubis also met him to discuss his role in the IPT 1965.

Equally important were the consultations with the organizations of victims:
a) The first consultation meeting was conducted on August 2013 by IPT 1965 in collaboration with YPKP 1965 and YAPHI, Solo. In this meeting, Siswa Santoso, as a representative of IPT 1965, presented the idea for the Tribunal and the preparatory process. This idea was intensively discussed. Most of those present (the meeting was attended by 130 participants, from 29 cities) supported the idea of conducting IPT 1965 so that the voices of victims could be heard at the international level. YAPHI also provided materials based on their research in Central Java. Later a series of meetings with YAPHI and victims was conducted in Solo to strengthen the support from the grass root level.

2. b)  A consultation meeting was also conducted in Jombang in January 2014. It was attended by 125 participants and was organized by YPKP Jombang. A representative from the Witness and Victim Protection Institute came to explain about the government policy on health allowances for the victims of past human rights violations, including for the victims of 1965. Saskia Wieringa and Nursyahbani Katjasungkana were also present. A group of musicians played and a group of women sang songs. Many intelligence people were observing the meeting, since the meeting took place next to the police station.
3. c)  A consultation meeting was also conducted on February 8, 2015 in Cirebon, with Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, attended by 123 participants. Many sad stories were revealed, and not only from direct victims. Also their families are still stigmatized. A son of a victim for instance told that he was accepted to become a police officer, but that he was fired because his supervisor finally learnt that he was the son of a PKI follower. A group of police officers attended the event, but they did not disturb it.
4. d)  The consultation meeting in Bukit Tinggi on 22 March 2015 was attacked by thugs with the support from the police and military. Yuni Chuzaifah from Komnas Perempuan and Mendawai, Head of the LPSK (Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban Witness and Victim Protection Institute) , and Nurkhoiron and Ferry Kesuma, from KontraS, as well as Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, from IPT 1965, as well as 200 participants, mostly old women from all over Sumatera, attended the meeting. The participants came especially as they wanted to listen the explanation from the head of the Witness and Victim Protection Institute on their rights to get a health allowance. They also were very interested to learn about the IPT 1965 aims and its expected outcome. Many old people fainted because of the brutality with which the thugs operated.
5. e)  A public discussion in a pesantren (religious school) in Jepara was held on 14 January 2015 with Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, where the film ‘The Look of Silence’ was screened, followed by a discussion with the head of this pesantren (Gus Nung, a well-known pluralist and environmental activist and supporter of the people who opposed the nuclear power plant in Rembang (Gunung Kendeng). This meeting was attended by approximately 250 santriwan and santriwati (male and female religious students). They were very curious but also furious as they realized they had been manipulated so long by their government about their own history.

6. f)  On 16 June, 2015 a public discussion was held in Surabaya, East Java, on the recently announced government plan to deal with past serious human rights violations, including those in 1965-68. Similar public discussions have been conducted in Surabaya, Aceh, Medan, East Nusa Tenggara and Jakarta. The discussion in Surabaya was conducted in collaboration with Kontras Surabaya and Airlangga University. Nursyahbani Katjasungkana explained the aim and expected outcome of the IPT 1965, and Herlambang Witraman spoke about the importance of advocacy at the international level, such as by IPT 1965, since at the national level the legal mechanism has already been exhausted. The responses from the participants were positive; they saw the IPT 1965 as an important step toward reconciliation.
7. g)  The public discussion in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara was attended by victims and various government representatives, NGO activists and representatives of churches, as well as by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana and Saskia Wieringa. Mery Kolimon, research coordinator of a major project on the memories of women victims in NTT, fully supported the IPT 1965. This group has contributed research results and two witnesses to the hearings in November 2015.
8. h) In collaboration with the International Centre for Aceh and Indian Ocean Studies, the IPT 1965 conducted a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) on Genocide in Aceh on 26 October 2015. It took place in Wisma Unsyiah and was attended by 15 participants. Most of them are prominent intellectuals, senior activist and students. The FGD had three main speakers: Roy Murtadho, representing IPT 1965, Mustawalad from ICAIOS and the Australian researcher Jess Melvin (via skype). The event started with a screening of Jembatan Bacem on the mass killings in Surakarta and with a discussion on the IPT 1965.

Roy told the audience about the involvement of the NU in the mass killings. While the army campaign was going on almost every week the military would meet with kyai (head of a pesantren) of the NU. He said that 1965 was the beginning of global capitalism in Indonesia, where the recently proclaimed agrarian laws were ignored and a new law on foreign investment was introduced. NU leader Gus Dur, when he was President of the nation, encouraged reconciliation and proposed to ask for a national apology, but he met with great resistance and no further efforts were made. According to Roy, the major challenge is that human rights enforcement and democracy will fail if we do not participate in the various efforts to uphold humanity and justice.

Mustawalad said that he appreciated this FGD since it was the first discussion on the 1965 massacre in Aceh. He was informed that there was a massacre site in sub-district Bandar in Bener Meriah District and among those murdered were babies. The perpetrators were members of DI/TII who were proud of having killed people whom they considered to be the anti-God. It is estimated that around 2,500 people were killed out of a total of 20,000 victims. It is hard to find survivors in Aceh since the violence continued with the policy of DOM (state of emergency) in Aceh by the Suharto regime. The cycle of violence and vengeance needs to stop – for that truth finding is necessary.

Jess Melvin, who wrote a thesis on the genocide in Aceh, told the audience that in her research she found convincing evidence of involvement of the military in Aceh. However, Kodam (regional military command) Aceh only devoted two paragraphs in their history of that period to the PKI, referring to the ‘people-driven act to fight against PKI’. This is another version of denial saying that the genocide was a burst of communal conflict. She has collected proof that the genocide was intentional and coordinated in a national campaign. From the provincial level, to the village level, the military structures were all involved. Intellectuals were also involved in building the military campaign of propaganda. She collected various bits of information, such as the chronology of the campaign by the military, a death map of the killings and meeting notes. Her findings are contained in the research report.

9. i)  On August 9, 2015, a national meeting of the victims was organized by LPH YAPHI and YPKP 1965, and a public discussion was organized by IPT 1965, Jakarta Secretariat and Satya Wacana Christian University with Nursyahbani Katjasungkana and Saskia Wieringa. However, these events had to be cancelled due to security reasons. The permit from Police Headquarters had been granted, but the local police did not allow the organizing committees to conduct the events since – according to the police – the Islamic hardliners threatened to attack and burn the church and the university. As usual, I such cases the police were unable or unwilling to offer protection.
10. j)  On 15 September 2015 IPT 1965, in collaboration with Semarang State University, conducted a seminar entitled, 50 years of 1965 Tragedy: Rekonsiliasi dalam Pendidikan dan Menghapus Kebencian (reconciliation in education and abolishing hatred). The speakers were Mbah Kelik (victim of 1965), Tedi Kholiluddin (NU), Hamdan (Historian) and Nursyahbani Katjasungkana. The main issue discussed was how to change the school curricula and the need for re-writing the history of 1965.
11. k)  On 30 September 2015, the IPT 1965 Coordinator was invited to be a speaker in the seminar entitled Genocide of 1965, organized by the Jakarta Theological School. The plan to screen the Look of Silence had to be cancelled, because the police told the organizers that there was a threat from the Muslim militia FPI (Front Pembela Islam, Muslim Defenders Front).
12. l) On 30 September 2015 Nursyahbani Katjasungkana was invited to be a speaker during a TV One talk show along with other speakers, including children of generals who were killed on the morning of 1 October 1965. Present were general Agus Wijoyo, Amelia Yani, Catherine Panjaitan, children of murdered generals, Ilham Aidit, son of DN Aidit, Bedjo Untung, representative of NU, Komnas HAM commissioner Nurkhoiron, retired general Kivlan Zen, and a general from the Information Division of the Army, Fahmi Idris from HMI/KAMI/Angkatan 66 and AM Fatwa from Muhammadyah. Most of them rejected Jokowi’s idea to convey an apology to the 1965 victims. Kievlan Zen even accused Nursyahbani Katjasungkana of being a traitor to the nation by bringing the 1965 massacre to international attention (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNu3S4plR4Q).

13. m)  On 1 October 2015, The IPT Secretariat launched a book entitled: The Kidnapping of Bali Governor AA Sutedja. The book launching was attended by the son of Sutedja who told the 200 participants in great detail about the kidnapping and its political background. The audience realized that the 1965 killings not only targeted members and followers of the Communist party but also of other political groups, such as nationalists, or staunch followers of President Sukarno.
14. n)  On 15 October, the IPT 1965 Jakarta secretariat, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights Studies, Medan State University, and Ikohi, North Sumatera chapter, conducted a public discussion and consultation on Justice and the Rights of the Victims of the 1965 Massacre. There were three speakers: Diah Wahyuningsih (history teacher), Sri Wahyuningroem (IPT 1965 secretariat Jakarta) and Fahmi Siregar from the Human Rights Centre. The public discussion was opened by the Dean of the History Department, Nurmala Berutu. Quadi Azam from the HR Center was the moderator. Diah told the audience that she does not want to continue the lies of the New Order about the 1965 massacres so she teaches her students not based on the text provided by the government guidelines. She just asks her students what they know about the events and based on their answers they discuss the issue.
15. o)  On 29 October, the IPT 1965 secretariat in collaboration with the Herbert Feith Foundation conducted a public discussion on IPT and the ‘lunching’ of a novel entitled ‘The Crocodile Hole’ by Saskia E. Wieringa, published by Yayasan Jurnal Perempuan. The Crocodile Hole is a fictional story about a Dutch woman journalist, who tried to reconstruct the 1965 massacres and was arrested by the Indonesia military. The plan to launch the novel, and other books related to the issue of 1965 has been banned by the police (see http://www.thejakartapost .com/news/2015/10/23/ubud-festival-banned- discussing-1965-massacre.html). But JP managed to hold a gathering and covertly ‘launched’ the novel during lunch. When a group of police and intelligence people came they questioned those present but they could not do anything because reading books during lunch is not a crime. They remained watching outside the restaurant. One of them bought a copy of the novel and had it signed. They stayed for several hours in front of the restaurant, while the others were harassing the sister of the restaurant owner.
16. p) International meetings:

On 3-7 November 2014, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana was invited by Impunity Watch (IW) to the Asia Exchange Meeting on Memory for Change, in Bangkok, Thailand. This meeting built on a previous exchange meeting on memorialisation organised by IW in 2012. Participants included representatives from Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste. The main focus of the Exchange was on the potential offered by bottom-up memorialisation initiatives in contributing to transitional justice processes. The key issue debated in the Exchange Meeting was the following: can memorialisation activities help to reduce impunity in Asian countries that suffer from a culture of silence and impunity? In this event Nursyahbani Katjasungkana presented a power point on the idea of IPT 1965 as memorialization activity (see link of the report at http://www.impunitywatch.org/html/index.php?alineaID=227).

Saskia Wieringa visited the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh, on 29 March 2015. This Tribunal deals with the genocide committed by the Pakistani army and its allies, particularly members of Jamaat-e-Islam, against primarily Hindus, after the break away from West Pakistan on March 25 1971. It is claimed that some 3 million people were brutally slaughtered in a few months. Tens of thousands of women were raped. Properties were plundered and burnt. In 2009 the ICTB was established and when in 2013 the Awami League was re-elected the ICTB stepped up its operations. It has condemned several Jamaat leaders to death. The ICTB, which is lodged within the premises of the Supreme and High Courts, has elaborate facilities and a large team of researchers and prosecutors. Of interest to IPT 1965 was its definition of genocide and the ruling on propaganda.

5.3 Mounting pressure

1. a)  As indicated above, the meeting organized in Bukit Tinggi on 22 March 2015 was forcibly disbanded by thugs. Similarly, in Salatiga the following day militia supported by the police dissolved the meetings organized by the victims’ organization YPKP 1965 in collaboration with the National Commission on VAW, the National Human Rights Commission and the Victim and Witness Protection Commission. This meeting was intended to discuss a new regulation on health allowances for victims of past human rights violations. These attacks were reported to President Joko Widodo, the Chief of Police Headquarters and the Chief Military Commander in Jakarta, but so far there has been no response.
2. b)  In the second half of 2015, tensions increased. The major issues triggering this tension were the 50th anniversary of the ‘events of 1965’ and the impending hearings of the Tribunal. The yearly presidential address to the nation on August 17 was also surrounded by tensions. Victims of the 1965 CAH hoped the President would apologize, rightwing groups fiercely protested. In the end the President did not apologize. Apart from the banning in Ubud and the book ‘lunch’ mentioned above, the following events are also worth mentioning
3. c)  On July 2, members of the mass organisation Ansor, and leaders of other religious groups, attacked people whom they identified as making up a ‘new style’ Communist party. These latter groups were identified as various human rights organisations who have been supporting victims of the CAH after October 1 1965. The attackers had prepared themselves by watching the notorious film ‘The betrayal of the G30S/PKI’ which was compulsory viewing during Suharto’s New Order. They burned so called PKI flags (which they must have made themselves) in the center of Blitar (http://www.adakitanews.com/ormas-di-blitar-aksi-perangi-pki-gaya-baru. July 2 Accessed July 2 2015)
4. d)  In October 2015, the issue of the student newspaper Lentera was dedicated to the history of Salatiga, where their home university, the Satya Wacana Christian University, is located. The mayor and the police objected and the remaining copies (of the original 500) were seized and burned. The issue is now available online (http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/10/18/0637/beritakan-kasus-1965-majalah-lentera-ditari-lalu- dibakar). Accessed October 18, 2015)  A discussion on the history of the song ‘genjer-genjer’ which was very popular around 1964-5, was banned. This discussion was planned for October 3, in the city of Banyuwangi, the place from which the song originated during the Japanese occupation. The song became associated with the Gerwani women who were accused of having seductively danced before the generals on the night of September 30. The song then became the symbol of sexual perversion.11
5. f)  In Lamongan a street singer was arrested who wore a t-shirt on which the hammer and sickle were portrayed. The boy had no idea of the meaning of the picture on the back of his shirt, he thought it belonged to a band he liked (http://news.detik.com/jawatimur/30476651/kodim-lamonga-amankan-pengamen-barkaos-palu-arit. Accessed October 19, 2015)  
6. Then a more serious event happened. Tom Ilyas, an elderly Indonesian exile living in Sweden, the IPT representative of that country, was arrested on October 11, 2015 and deported. He had wanted to visit the grave of his father who, he had just been informed, probably lay buried in a mass grave in West Sumatra. (In the right-wing propaganda around this event, the upcoming IPT 1965 Tribunal was repeatedly referred to, by among other General Kivlan Zen, who sent around a message on his Facebook account condemning women’s and human rights activists, led by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana and Todung Mulya Lubis, warning that this Tribunal might split the nation (email from Nursyahani Katjasungkana on October 17, 2015)
7. i) In October, prior to the hearings, the Indonesian embassy in The Hague warned Indonesian students that if they participated in the hearings their scholarships might be revoked. Although this was later denied by Indonesian authorities, the students were warned and many of them withdrew. Indonesian students from other countries took their places (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/11/06/govt-student-body-deny-students-were-warned-people-s- tribunal. Accessed November 7, 2015)

5.4 Security Plan

On 13 October 2015, a training workshop on this Security Plan was conducted by the IPT 1965 Jakarta Secretariat in collaboration with human rights defenders. It was attended by 35 participants, including the witnesses who would attend the Tribunal and NGO activists who are working on 1965 issues as well as representatives from the National Commission on VAW and LPSK. The workshop was followed-up by a small meeting with the parties concerned to draft the SOP on a Security Plan especially for those who would be going to the Hague. In the end human rights lawyers accompanied the witnesses to and from the Tribunal. During the sessions themselves extra security officials were employed, and the police were on standby. Fortunately, no incidents occurred during the sessions, and all witnesses and prosecutors returned home safely.

5.5 Mobilizing support internationally

As one of the objectives of the Foundation IPT 1965 was to make the post-October 1965 crimes against humanity better known internationally, already in this first phase several attempts were made to mobilize international support. Contact was established with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with human rights organizations which have shown interest in the Indonesian crimes against humanity, such as Amnesty International and Tapol (London). Various embassies were visited in The Hague. Letters were sent to prominent human rights advocates, such as Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu. A supporting letter was written to US Senator Tom Udall, who submitted a resolution for the 113th session of the US Congress on the need for reconciliation in Indonesia and the need for disclosure by the United States Government of what is known of the events surrounding the mass killings during 1965-66.

5.6 Information campaign

1.a) As breaking the silence around the CAH committed in Indonesia after October 1, 1965 was one of the major objectives of the Foundation IPT 1965, the information campaign conducted by our two media teams, in Jakarta and the Netherlands, was a core part of our activities. The activities mentioned above were accompanied by continuous efforts at lobbying the media and opinion leaders in The Netherlands. Likewise institutions, politicians and prominent scholars were contacted who might give support to IPT 1965. Prior to the hearings the mainstream media have had shown little interest. In The Netherlands support from government institutions was disappointing, even though human rights is a pillar of Dutch foreign policy. Fear of the mobilization of the particular sensitivities, due to, among others, the ‘colonial burden’ in the Dutch-Indonesian relations has been cited as a cause. Trade relations may have been another factor. In the run up to the Tribunal, our lobby efforts intensified. We also visited some foreign embassies to inform them about the impending tribunal.

2. b)  Within Europe, the IPT 1965 teams in Germany and France succeeded in attracting some public interest. In the period May-December 1965, several events were held (see above), which were accompanied by online and print media reporting, especially in Germany.
3. c)  In Indonesia, lobby activities have been going on since 2013. The focus was on getting support from religious and political leaders and from leading human rights activists. There have been meetings with national figures such as, among others, Solahuddin Wahid (head of the influential Tebu Ireng Islamic Boarding School and a prominent leader of the NU, representatives of Komnas HAM, the Presidential Advisory Council and NGO activists. A meeting was also been held with a representative of the Australian Embassy.
4. d)  The IPT 1965 supported a halaqah (Islamic cleric’s meeting to discuss important issues) that was conducted by the Nurul Jaddid pesantren in Probolinggo. This halaqah reached an important agreement, allowing the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU, the biggest Muslim Organization in Indonesia) to conduct meetings with victims/survivors of the 1965 massacres and other CAH, with a view towards reconciliation. This is an important result in view of the fact that the IPT 1965 has been misunderstood by many NU people. On 22 September 2015, the Jakarta Secretariat had a meeting with the Presidential Advisory Council to inform members about the IPT 1965 plan. They promised to inform the President about IPT 1965 objectives and activities.e)  The IPT 1965 Chief Prosecutor, Mulya Lubis, organized a public lecture and invited Jan Pronk, professor at the Institute of Social Studies and former Minister of Development Cooperation, who is also an IPT 1965 Advisory Committee Member, to be a speaker at the Constitutional Court Hall, at the Indonesia University and Andalas University on the Geography of Human Rights. He mainly spoke about how important it is for all countries to promote human rights and to combat impunity.

5. f)  Prior to the hearings the IPT 1965 secretariat in Jakarta conducted a public information campaign in collaboration with networks of NGOs, universities and organisations of victims/survivors, as well as student activists, who in many ways are involved in truth- seeking regarding the violence in 1965-68. The campaign was aimed at raising public awareness about the 1965 tragedy among students and urban youth in several cities throughout the country. Messages were sent out online and through social media, including Twitter and YouTube. Collaboration was sought with artists and cultural groups, and campaign materials, such as brochures and t-shirts were produced with the aim of raising awareness among the young generation. The IPT media team in The Netherlands was also closely involved, providing content material and facilitating interaction between activists/exile community abroad and activists/youth in Indonesia.

5.7 Management of the secretariats and funding

1. a)  Lack of sufficient funding was a major stumbling block. The initiative to organize a Tribunal on the CAH in Indonesia has been a purely people’s initiative, by the victims/survivors themselves, concerned human rights activists and researchers. Though several major human rights NGOs in Indonesia offered support, none of them was able to establish a secretariat or to contribute financially. The YLBHI offered office space, also as Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, IPT general coordinator is the chair of their board. The women’s legal aid institute APIK managed the project financially. In The Hague the secretariat is located in the private residence of the chair of the Foundation.
2. b)  A small contribution from Solidariteit and Weerbaarheid in mid-2014 allowed us to build the website. In the autumn of that year our major donor (who wishes to remain unnamed) decided to contribute the funds for the Tribunal itself. Other major donors we approached were not able to contribute. Fundraising took an enormous amount of energy. With crowd funding we eventually managed to fill the major gaps.
3. c) Almost all contributors worked on a voluntary basis. This includes the board, the coordinators and all researchers. Only since early 2015 have we been able to financially support some members of the media team and the secretariats in The Hague and Jakarta. Regrettably, this led in one case to serious tensions. The remunerations have been for particular tasks and on a task basis and only for those who had no other means of income. This has been far from ideal and has in some cases led to a lack of professionalism, particularly in the first year and a half. Fortunately, from early 2015 onwards highly professional people volunteered to strengthen our Organizing Committee and our media teams. Sometimes they suspended their paid jobs to be able to contribute to the IPT 1965. In the last months prior to the hearings every member of the OC had their own well- defined task, and all were working in great harmony and with great dedication towards the goal we all shared.
4. d)  Next to the contributions by donor agencies, the IPT1965 relied on direct individual donations to the account of the foundation through a crowd-funding campaign. Particularly when the hearings were underway, donations started coming in. In June-July 2015, a short film, focused around an interview with one of the 1965 exiles, was uploaded to our website to promote the crowd-funding campaign. Funding remains a critical concern.
5. e)  We still need funds to hold the event in 2016 in Geneva, where the final verdict of the judges will be pronounced. And we need funds for our post-tribunal events, such as lobbying in the UN and for the educational activities planned.

6. Collecting data

In 2013 the first steps were set up to approach researchers who might be willing to help draft the research report for the prosecution. As we could not use the data of the 2012 Report on the mass crimes against humanity in Indonesia collected by the national Human Rights Commission we had to start all over again. We needed data that would prove that the CAH committed in Indonesia after October 1 were widespread and systematic and we needed to know the extent of the responsibility of the state. Not all researchers we approached had the time or the inclination to rewrite their data for the purpose of this report. We were unable to collect new data as we had no funds at our disposal so we were dependent on data that had already been collected, and in most cases had already been analysed. An editorial team was formed consisting of Saskia Wieringa (coordinator), Annie Pohlman, Jess Melvin, Ratna Saptari, Ayu Wahyaningrum and Wijaya Herlambang (below). In the end we received contributions from some 40 researchers and activists from all over the world.

7. The Hearings from 10-13 November 2015, The Hague

7.1.1 Panel of judges

After a long process of consultation we were fortunate to be able to count on a very strong panel of judges. In alphabetical order these are:

• Mireille Fanon Mendès-France (member of Permanent People’s Tribunal, expert at UN body, Director of Association Frantz Fanon);
• Cees Flinterman (former member of the UN Human Rights Committee for the ICCPR, Former Member of CEDAW, Professor of International Human Rights Law);
• John Gittings (a highly respected scholar on East Asia and journalist with the Guardian in 1983-2003);
• Helen Jarvis (vice-president of Permanent People’s Tribunal and member of the International Advisory Committee of UNESCO’s Memory of the World program and of the Advisory Board of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Justice in Dhaka, Bangladesh, former Chief of Victims Support Section of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia);
• Sir Geoffrey Nice (former Lead Prosecution Counsel in the Slobodan Milosevic case at the ICTY and prosecutor of other ICTY cases);
• Shadi Sadr (founder and director of Justice for Iran, award-winning and leading human rights lawyer on Iran, co-author of ‘Crime and Impunity, Sexual Torture of Women in Islamic Republic Prisons’);
• Zak Yacoob, ((retired) Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, former Chancellor of the University of Durban-Westville, involved in several institutions that represent the blind. Judge Yacoob was elected Presiding Judge of the IPT 1965.)

7.1.2 Prosecuting team

The prosecuting team consisted of:

• Todung Mulya Lubis (board member of Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation and leading Human Rights Lawyer in Indonesia, Chief Prosecutor at IPT 1965);
• Antarini Arna (Human Rights Activist);
• Sri Suparyati (vice chair Commission of Disappeared and Victims of Violence;
• Bahrein van Halen, Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation);
• Uli Parulian Sihombing, (chair of Indonesia Legal Resource Center);
• Agung Wijaya (former staff at YLBHI and Access to Justice Program of Ausaid),
• Silke Studzinsky (expert on Sexual Violence, involved in the Extraordinary Chambersin the Courts of Cambodia as Civil Part Lawyer, 2008-2013)

7.1.3 Registrar

Szilvia Csevár (Netherlands Lawyers Association for Human Rights), assisted by Sunil Pal. Minutes and summaries of the hearings: Elaine Barbiers, Patrick Bek, Diana Mudrinic, Thomas Veenstra, Barry de Vries, Hammad Sarwar.

7.2 Structure of the hearings

a) The hearings were held in the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague, from 10 – 13 November 2015. The hearings were opened by the general coordinator of the IPT 1965, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana (see annex 3). Thereafter the chief prosecutor, Todung Mulya Lubis read his opening statement (see annex 4) and the introduction to the indictment (see annex 5 for the full indictment). The Registrar opened each session, and invited a representative of the government of Indonesia to take the seat assigned. This seat remained empty during the proceedings.

b)  Each count was read by the prosecutor assigned for that count. They called upon the direct and expert witnesses to present their testimonies. For most counts there was no time to also present the audiovisual material that had been prepared. Some factual witnesses and two expert witnesses testified under pseudonym behind a black curtain. The judges had also divided their tasks. The judge to whom a specific count was assigned was first to ask questions to the prosecutor or the witnesses. Thereafter, other judges submitted any questions they might have. On 13th of November the last count was presented, after which the judges withdrew to prepare their preliminary statement. The hearings were closed by the chair of the Foundation IPT 1965, Saskia Wieringa

c)  The Nieuwe Kerk, which no longer functions as a church, was eminently suited for an occasion like this. There are two large spaces. In the church proper the hearings were held. Below that in the catacombs a parallel program was presented and coffee, tea and lunch provided. At the end of every day the press was briefed. After the concluding session a well-attended press conference was held. In the catacombs films were shown, there was an exhibitions, a media desk, and tables and chairs where visitors could rest. In the afternoon of the last day, while the judges were preparing their preliminary statement, a ceremony was held to commemorate the victims. This ceremony was led by Welmoed Koekebakker and Evi Sutrisno.

7.3 Summaries per count

The real names of the witnesses who testified behind the screen and who wished to remain anonymous are known to the Registrar.

Prosecutor: Uli Parulian Sihombing 1. Factual witness Mr Martono

On November 10, 1965, around ten o’clock Mr Martono was arrested by the military, the RPKAD (Resimen Para Komando Angkatan Darat, Para Commando regiment of the Army). He never found out why. He was tortured and detained but never charged. He was electrocuted, but survived. In the period 1965-67 Mr Martono was ordered by the OPSUS (a special team consisting of members of the military, the air force, the mobile brigade and even of religious mass organizations such as the NU) to dispose of bodies in the Bengawan Solo River. He had to drive the truck. If he would cooperate he would be released, he was told. He picked up the bodies at the Diponegoro detention center, where detainees were electrocuted (42.000 volt). He had no assistance. Mr Martono could not recall the exact number of bodies he had to dispose of. This differed widely, from two bodies a day, up to 20 bodies during weekends.

2. Expert witness Mr Ferry Putra (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

Ferry Putra is an independent journalist and was present at the exhumation of a mass grave in the woods near the city of Wonosobo, Central Java, in the period November 16-18, 2000. Ferry Putra shot over six hours of film of the exhumation of which three minutes were shown during the hearing. The film shows images of the exhumation, human remains, a ring, bullets, all found in the mass grave.

This exhumation was instigated by YPKP 1965 and headed by three forensics, among whom Dr Harnoko. Based on directions of several witnesses (i.e. Wonosobo locals) the team started digging. In three days they found twenty-one human skeletons.

Based on the position of the human remains in the mass grave, forensics concluded that the victims stood in one line before they were shot dead, which was done in a short period of time. Besides bullets from long range rifles (used by the army), forensics also found a ring between the bones on the second day of the exhumation. The ring was cleaned, but the inscription was difficult to read. Allegedly the inscriptions read ‘Sudjijem’ (old spelling) and ‘21/6/1965’, and, based on the ring and the inscriptions, the victim was probably just married and aged around twenty.

On the last day forensics found the remains of three more bodies, but the forensics have not yet come to any conclusions with regard to these remains – and thus do not rule out the possibility that more human remains can be found in the mass grave.

3. Expert-witness Mrs Ngati (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

Mrs Ngati did research in six districts of East Nusa Tenggara: Alor, Saba, Sumba, Central and South West Timor and Kupang. She lists the numbers of victims that were found in these districts (see Indictment, count 32E). As far as it is known, military commanders ordered the killings, though no written orders were found, only oral testimonies. She is part of a team that collected some 100 oral testimonies. Mrs Ngati’s research (2010) is based on testimonies of the wives of the male victims, eye witnesses and people who transported the victims. Those who transported the victims were ordered to do so by security officials, i.e. TNI members and the (sub)district level police officers. If they would refuse they would be killed themselves, they were told. Mrs Ngati gave her year-to-year research to the Registrar.

Judge Cees Flinterman asked Mrs Ngati if her research shows complicity in these murders of the Catholic Church. Mrs Ngati answers that her research shows that priests were asked to be part of execution teams or to escort victims to places of execution.

4. Expert witness Mrs Leslie Dwer

In 1999 Mrs Leslie Dwer collected testimonies from witnesses who knew locations of mass graves in Bali. Between 80.000 and 120.000 people were killed in Bali in the period December 1965 until March 1966 – 5.8% of the total population at that time. Some of these mass graves contain the remains of 200 victims, among whom members of the PKI or affiliated parties (such as Partindo) or associations affiliated with the PKI, such as the Indonesian Farmers’ Union or the women’s organization, Gerwani. People with no political ties at all were also discovered among the dead, and even children of 11-12 years old.

The military command directed the killings and solicited local militias to assist. The killings started in December 1965, after the arrival of the Special Forces, RPKAD, in Bali. These Special Forces conducted the killings, together with other military personnel, locals, members of the TNI and associated militias, and Ansor militias from Java. The military and local police also ordered civilians to take part in the killings in neighboring villages, threatening to kill their families if they did not cooperate. People were also killed because others coveted their piece of land or their wives.

Mrs. Leslie Dwyer did not visit all 100 mass graves in Bali, but knows Balinese locals, witnesses and researchers who saw most of these mass graves. She estimates the actual number of mass graves to be even higher.

7.3.2 Count 2: ENSLAVEMENT

Prosecutor: Sri Suparyati
1. Factual witness Mr Basuki Bowo (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

He was captured on the 19th October 1965. He was an active member of the leftist student organization CGMI (Concentrasi Gerakan Mahasiswa Indonesia, Indonesian Student Movement Center). Due to the unrest they were guarding the building of the University of Res Publica, known as a leftist university, with many ethnic Chinese students, established by Utami Suryadharma. In total 126 students who guarded the university were detained; some of them were members of the Pemuda Rakyat. He was arrested by Battalion l and brought to the Wirogunan prison. All the people who were arrested were transferred to overcrowded prison cells and he eventually ended up in the concentration camp of Buru Island. Nobody was ever given an arrest warrant.

They were first brought to Ambarawa, a military camp, and then to Nusa Kambangan by train. From there they were loaded on ships by military personnel and transported to Buru. He ended up in unit IV, where many students and intellectuals were, who were forced to labour as peasants. This unit counted some 500 men. There were around 20 of those units. Apart from agricultural work they also made handicrafts and cut wood. The proceeds of their labour were taken by the guards. At first they received small rations of rice. Later when they started to grow rice themselves the guards took a major part of the harvest. Beside rice they also ate mice, birds and snakes. The bigger snakes, from 6-9 meters, they shared.

Mr Basuki Bowo remembered an incident where they were planting rice when they were accused of sabotaging the planting and they were beaten heavily. Another time one of his friends was asked to work in the flower garden of the guards. He made some piles of garden weeds and was accused of making a reference to the 7 generals who were killed in the night of 30 September, and he was beaten.

Initially they were not allowed to read. Once a friend read a piece of newspaper and was beaten heavily. His body was consequently found floating in river. Only in 1978 they were given a notebook, so he started to refresh his memory about physics and French, and he taught his friends English. For health facilities, every unit had a small quarter; the government sent their junior doctors. They were also provided with some equipment, but that was only available in the headquarters. Working hours were from 7am till 5pm. But if the work wasn’t finished they had to toil till 9pm. And they never received remuneration. In total he was detained for 14 years; he spent 9 years in Buru. He was classified as a category B prisoner, which means that he was considered to be involved in the murder of the generals, but that there was no proof. After his release he was required to report once a month, and in Jakarta he had to report once every three months. Upon his release he was required to swear allegiance to the Pancasila, which is the ideological basis of the state. Before they left they had to sign a statement that they were not treated badly. They also had to sign up with a religion. They had to follow religious instruction in the camp. Most chose the religion that they considered to be the easiest, for instance Buddhism.

2. Expert witness Mr Asvi Warman Adam

This witness is a historian at LIPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Indonesian Institute of Sciences), who has published many books on 1965 in Indonesia. He has done extensive research on the situation of Buru Island as a concentration camp, and for the National Commission of Human Rights in 2003. He presented three main findings.

Firstly, there is sufficient evidence for a count of enslavement of some 11,000 people, most of them of the category B. Secondly, the place is clear, namely Buru island; and thirdly, the chain of command is also clear. There were a total of 22 units, with each containing some 500 inmates. The violations were systematic and widespread. The commander had the military rank of Pangdam.

There were three objectives: 1) to protect (amankan) other people from Communist ideology, particularly in the light of the upcoming elections; 3) to isolate Communists; 3) to ensure people adhered to the Pancasila ideology.

• They had to produce their own food.
• Our team of researchers made an analysis that these people were transported to Buru so that people would not be influenced by their thoughts for the upcoming elections in 1971. In reply to a question by a Judge, the witness replied that the government wasn’t much interested in releasing people even after the elections were over. They were not released until 7 years after those elections and under international pressure.

All people were taken to Buru Island in closed prison railway wagons, they were isolated in concentration camps and had no opportunity to escape. They were mostly transported in 1971, but already in 1968 the State Prosecutor had ordered a survey on what was the best place for this type of enforced transmigration. Buru was selected because a large part was not permanently inhabited and there was a natural barrier (sea, mountains) to prevent the prisoners from escaping.

If a person tried to escape he was caught and he was tortured, his ears were put in water and they put a grass hopper in his ear. This also happened to prisoner Hersri, when his friend ran away – Hersri has remained deaf till this day.

The commander of Kopkamtib (extra constitutional agency) had great powers, he could take decision on anything. This commander too decided to deport people to Buru. Particularly General Nasution and General Suharto were instrumental in these decisions. The alleged reason for detaining people was to protect the community from people with political affiliations close to the Communist Party. In a response to a question from a prosecutor whether these threats actually existed, he said that in a memo from the Chief Prosecutor it was written that they were detained to protect people from their Communist beliefs, so it was for political reasons. The government thought that these people could influence people not to vote for the government party (Golkar). Those who criticized the government were rejected as Communists and the idea of the danger of communism was kept deliberately alive in order to brand people and then target them.

The basic cause for these deportations was the fulfillment of General Suharto’s speech to destroy the Communist Party from its roots. The military interpreted it in a specific way; arrest, detain and even kill people. The camp functioned with a system of forced labour for rice cultivation. Prisoners were also forced to cut wood which the guards could sell. The prisoners received a pittance, the guards made up to 500% profit.

The conditions in the prison cells were very poor. Torture was common, there were restrictions on food, there were few health facilities, sexual violence, such as rape, frequently occurred. This latter form of sexual violence mainly occurred in the women’s concentration camp of Plantungan, in Central Java.

The detainees were released in 1978-9 due to pressure from international organizations, such as Amnesty International and from donors. First they were tested. Initially captives did not have access to their families, only in the last years their families were invited to come over – but they could not then return to their places of origin.

The witness talked to about 10-15 eye witnesses; while many of his findings were also based on written memoires of the victims, such as the books by Hersri and Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Also camp commander Sugiyarto wrote a memoir. There were three categories of prisoners. Those categorized as A were considered to be directly involved and were tried in courts or in military tribunals. Category B prisoners were deemed to be involved, with less evidence being available. Those categorized as C were deemed sympathizers of PKI. Categorization was random.

Judge Fanon-Mendes-France: asked about the conditions of enslavement in the camp. The witness replied that the prisoners had no power to do anything but what was ordered by the camp authorities. It was truly a concentration camp. There was no way to escape. If they tried they were immediately shot dead. The army tightly controlled the camp. The prisoners had to unlearn their socialist perspectives. Religion was thought to be able to put them on the right path. So they were forced to build places of worship.

• Judge Flinterman asked about the gender dimension of enslavement.
• In the women’s camp Plantungan some 600 women were detained. They too had no way to escape. They suffered a lot from rapes and sexual slavery. In many cases children were left alone and ended up on the streets. Families were split and destroyed, and children deprived of their education.

Witness Asvi Warman replied to Judge Flinterman’s question: “We tried to publish our data but the report of the National Human Rights Commission is still a state secret. Only the executive summary is publicly available. We tried to spread as much information as possible via press conferences, without breaking the law.”

•  The witness explained the system of categorization.
• Category A are the ones considered directly responsible for the murder of the generals; most of them were tried; Category B were considered to be involved but without any proof. Category C were considered to have a distant connection.

Actually all Category C prisoners were supposed to be released shortly after capture, but many ended up in Buru, where only cat B prisoners were supposedly deported to. This categorization process was very haphazard. Some of the Category C prisoners were only 14- 17 years old. How could they have been involved? Kopkamtib categorized prisoners, based on psychological tests.

7.3.3 Count 3: IMPRISONMENT

Prosecutor: Uli Parulian
1. Factual witness Mr Bedjo Untung

He was 17 years old when the generals were murdered and a member of a leftist student organization which was categorized as Communist, but in fact it had no political affiliation.

He was arrested by soldiers five years after the events. He had fled to Jakarta to escape pursuit by soldiers. He had to sleep away from his home as no one felt safe to sleep at home. His father and uncle had been caught. His uncle was killed, and his house was burned. There was no arrest warrant, no official document, he was actually abducted.

He was arrested by an intelligence unit of the military. He was taken to headquarters, where there were already hundreds of people. For one year he was interrogated at Kelong, tortured with electricity, beaten, stripped naked. In Kelong he heard screams every night of the prisoners who were tortured. They were given only very little rice every day, very dirty rice, with stones. He had to wash it every time. He became ill, his feet swelled up because of the hunger.

At least 5 people died in detention that year, by committing suicide, 3 hanged themselves in the toilet. People were not allowed to talk, they were ordered to keep their heads down. After one year in Kelong he was transferred to Salemba.

At Kelong there was no access to health facilities, because they were expected to die anyway. In Salemba , there was a small office, but no drugs were dispensed. Though the church gave some drugs, they were taken away by commanders.

He had no family in the city so received no visits. His mother lived under very difficult circumstances. He did not want to be an extra burden to her, so his life depended on food and solidarity from others. They shared their food, if they had a cake they used to divide it among 9 people, and if they made a cup of tea everyone used to drink from it. During his 8 years of imprisonment, he was only visited twice.

His case was never brought to court. For 9 years there were no lawyers available, no one would have the courage to defend a political prisoner in those years. If someone would come forward he would be detained as well.

In response to the question ‘If your organization and your father’s organization had no connection with Communists, why were you and your father arrested?’ he said that he never understood that, even till now. His father was a teacher. He told the interrogators that he wasn’t Communist.

Question from judge: Did you get any visitors to you or your friend detainees? Yes they had some, but the screening process was very tight. Families had to get prior permission. The soldiers did not inform families of the whereabouts of prisoners, so often families didn’t know where their relatives were kept.

2. Factual witness Mr Martono

In 1965, he was arrested by people from the army. Two wore uniforms of the RPKAD, three wore ninja clothes. There was no arrest warrant. They had no reason, he was not involved in anything. When they reached the camp, they tied his hands, and they directed him to the main road, 150 Meters away. They took him to their headquarters in Sukohardjo in Kartasura. They asked him if he was a member of the Communist party? He said no. Next question they asked: have you killed anyone? He said no, never. In the end the Commander said let him go. But as an officer was shot he was considered to be involved and they brought him back. He was held captive in the town hall. They were only allowed to wear their underwear, in the morning he had to stand in the sun, together with 8 people, sometimes for 8 hours. Present were members of the AURI (Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia, Air Force of the Indonesian Republic), the police and the CPM (Corps Polisi Militar, Military Police), as well as soldiers from Korem and Kodim. They were heavily tortured, 13 were tortured to death. He was also electrocuted, with 22,500 volts, but maybe as he was an electrician he had special powers and he survived. Also involved were the Teperda, Team pemeriksaan daerah, regional investigation teams.

For 3 months they stayed in the town hall, then they were taken to a centre in Sasonomulyo, in the neighbourhood of the Kraton (court), where they were held for one year. Some 2,000 people were detained there. He was tortured again with the use of electricity for two years. Chinese people gave them some food, otherwise they would have starved. There were no health facilities.

As they decided he had been in no way involved in any of the organizations they targeted he was sort of free, but he had to follow their orders. He assisted them as a driver and cooked. He had to move dead bodies of people who were killed. People were called up every night, dibon. Later he had to remove their dead bodies.

In response to the question ‘How were you treated in detention?’ he said that he had certain skills, as an electrician, so he was treated as one of them. Nobody dared to ask any questions, so he didn’t ask why he was arrested. If someone asked that you could be killed, so everyone kept silent. He helped them, he said, because it was best for his future.

In response to a question by judges ‘Was there a standard method of killing?’ he said there were various ways. Some were stoned to death; others were dragged after cars. Mostly their throats were cut and many people had their ears sliced off.

3. Expert witness Prof. Dr Saskia Wieringa

All prisoners were categorized but the outcome was mostly not revealed to them. The tests were developed by a team of psychologists from UI in Jakarta and UNPAD in Bandung, instigated by Kopkamtib. They were assisted by the University of Nijmegen and the Free University of Amsterdam. The idea was to find out the level of ‘communistness’. Initially the notoriously unreliable Rorschach test was used, later the more elaborate Eysenck and Edwards scales. They tried to find out how ‘Communist’ people were. The more Communist you were, the more guilty you were. Young psychologists were sent to Holland, particularly the University of Nijmegen, for their PHDs to develop those tests.

As far as we know they used these tests on all prisoners. But people don’t talk about it; we interviewed professors at both UI and UNPAD, who are on record of having been involved in these tests, but they deny it. But there are testimonies of people telling about it. The Psychologists were actually acting as judges, in the absence of any legal process people were classified into categories B or C, which made an enormous difference; it could mean the difference between death or life. C category prisoners were usually released much earlier than B category prisoners. In Buru there was another wave of testing to determine who could already be released into society. Those considered hard-headed Communists were released last. The A category included mostly soldiers, who in some way or other had been present at the site where the generals were killed – and the direct members of the G30S group. The B category was comprised of leaders of the Communist party or affiliated organizations. The C category was eventually divided into 3 sub-categories and included those who had been involved in much earlier struggles, particularly in Madiun in 1948, Ordinary members of the PKI, or its affiliated organizations, or those considered sympathetic to Communism.

7.3.4 Count 4: TORTURE

Prosecutor: Bahrain Makmun
1. Factual witness Mr Muhammad Pakasi

He was a respected civil servant around 1965. He knew people were arrested, but he didn’t worry very much about himself as he was not a Communist. Yet after a few months he was arrested and terribly tortured. He didn’t ask for a warrant or a reason for his arrest and was never offered one. He himself thinks that maybe he was arrested because he had opposed the regional uprising a few years earlier, Permesta,(Perdjuangan (Rakyat) Semesta, Total People’s Struggle).

He saw people being tortured by putting pencils between their fingers and then pressing them together. He himself was tortured mercilessly. He was put at the edge of the wall and then was kicked from behind by the commander. Cigarettes were extinguished on the back of his neck. His head became an ash tray. He was beaten till he was unconscious.

He heard people crying out with pain in the detention centre. Particularly the women, Gerwani members, were horribly tortured. His wife was kicked too, harsh words were shouted at her. She reported this as she always brought food, otherwise they would have starved. There was no medical treatment, only in the last camp they received some treatment.

He was categorized as B1- he found that out later, as it was written on his letter of release. He was released in 1977, after 12 years and 5 days.

2. Factual witness Mr Martin Aleida

He had been a journalist in Jakarta since 1963, working for the PKI daily, Harian Rakyat. Together with four of his friends he was arrested in operation Kalong, led by army captain Suroso. They were placed in a concentration camp. His chief editor was sent to the same camp. When he unbuttoned his shirt Martin Aleida showed the wounds that he got from being beaten. Although he was bleeding, the only medicine available was some Indonesian herb.

He was held there for less than a year. He was released, because in his pockets they didn’t find anything, no party card or other document to link him to the PKI, only the name of his father and his love letters to his girlfriend. His father right then had gone on the haj and had written his last will. Maybe that caused them to release him early – as the son of a hadji.

There were about 300 other prisoners in the camp in Jakarta. The women were forced to work in the kitchen. Tarni, the wife of party leader Nyoto, was also there with her five children who had no other place to go. His fiancée was also detained there. The women and children were woken up every night by shrieks of pain. In the morning they had to clean the blood from the floor. Some of the men were beaten with the tail of a stingray (ekor pari) which leaves deep, nasty wounds. The prisoners would be electrocuted as well. They were almost drowned in the mandi bak (water tank), others were forced to eat a full plate of hot sambal.

Names were important for their captors. The Balinese poet Putu Oka was also detained. He was heavily tortured because he refused to give them any names. With the names of friends, or of colleagues in any of the branches of the party or of the affiliated organizations, they could continue their red drive.

Judge: Why were you arrested? The administration was a mess; they didn’t know anything; they had no names. He was just threatened with a knife. He never revealed any names; they couldn’t link him to any organization. Question: Were you arrested because you were a reporter? The witness replied that his newspaper was affiliated with the Communist party, but that he didn’t carry any card of the Communist party. He wasn’t told that he was interrogated because he was a Communist. He was told to fill in the formal form; name, DOB, and there was one column which said that he was a reporter.

Judge: How come you were not tortured? Witness replied that he wasn’t tortured like the other people were, it was fate. Maybe the last will of his father saved him.
After his release he survived by writing stories for Tempo, under a pseudonym. Six years later, he was captured again and interrogated. He had been betrayed by a friend.

Prosecutor: Antarini Arna
1. Factual witness Kinkin Rahayu (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

In 1965 she experienced the darkest and most frightening moments of her life, when she was blacklisted and arrested. She was active in the student movement as a young student, but initially she herself was not affected. First her father was arrested with 3 other family members. They said he was placed under security, so she asked where he was secured? She didn’t get an answer. She asked the officers when she was also arrested why they were they securing (amankan); they said it was an order.

When she was taken to a military office, Kodim in Sleman, it turned out that it had moved, so she was put in a truck and was taken to a camp, Jagonan, a former military headquarters turned into a prison. She was put with 500 persons, men and children and babies. She tried to get information whether her father was there; they told her her father was there so she left some clothing for him, but she never saw him. Every day people were tortured, she could hear them screaming.

All woman detainees were interrogated and asked where their mark of Gerwani (cap Gerwani, supposedly a tattoo) was. They asked her whether she had attended the naked dancing at Lubang Buaya. She had no idea what was meant by that, and where that might be. Were you involved with the G30S group? They asked her.

One day, she was interrogated; her clothes from feet to waist were removed to see her cap Gerwani, but of course it was nowhere. They asked who in her family was involved in the Communist coup. She replied that her parents were farmers, that nobody knew anything about a coup.

After the interrogation was finished she was told to sign a form that she was only a member of the student organization IPPI and that she was interrogated only once. There was a Catholic priest who provided holy communion to Christians; she was released on the recommendation of the priest, in April 1966.
After she was released she returned to school and became a teacher. But in her house there had been many rehearsals of the wayang orang, with the gamelan that the PKI owned. So her house was seen as a ‘party house’.

One night her house was raided – six people carrying weapons came at the door. They asked a name of a person, she said that that was not her. But they didn’t believe her and searched her home, and when they found her release letter, they said that she was a Communist. She denied that, but her face was slapped. They accused her of involvement in a women’s guerilla political movement. She denied again and was hit again.

Then she was stripped naked and was told to get on the table. They burned her body with cigarettes to make her confess that she had participated in this political guerilla movement. Finally they burned her pubic hair. She cried out the name of Jesus. They thought she was atheist, and didn’t believe she was a religious person.

She was beaten and fell on the floor. After that they asked her again whether she was going to confess. Finally she was dragged to the wall and beaten with a bicycle tire, until everything went black. Suddenly she woke up in the military police office (CPM). She was introduced to a man, and was asked whether she knew this person. She denied knowing him, and they were handcuffed together and thrown into a cell. His body was wounded; they were both in a very bad condition.

After three days she was taken out of the cell. They were taken to the interrogation room and asked the same questions again, whether she knew this man or not. She denied knowing the man again. Then the man was also questioned. Finally they were told to choose, confess or be stripped naked. She said she had no choice. Finally, she was stripped naked and she was asked the same questions again; they were beaten again, they said – we are waiting for your confession. In the end her body was lifted down, after some time they came back and tied their hands behind their backs. She was feeling very sick.

She was transferred to a cell, in the prison of Wirogunan. There were some ladies who tended her wounds; she could not even talk. When her health got better she was again summoned, and asked the same questions. They interrogated her several times.
She was summoned again and again. She didn’t know why she was the only one to be called all the time. They asked when she had joined the women’s guerilla organisation, then they kicked her and again they stripped her naked. She was touched by all these men and had to kiss their genitals. After that all the men asked her once again, they became very angry. She had to lie down on her belly, and they cut her hair. She doesn’t remember what they did, everything became dark. When she woke up she was back in her cell.

After that she refused to talk and eat; she thought this would be the end of her life. She did not menstruate for 8 months due to stress. The doctor told her that she had to pray and to relieve herself of the stress in order to menstruate. She was then sent to Plantungan. There were many snakes there, it used to be a leper colony. She had to do forced labour, build roads, make gardens, cultivate their own food, all with their bare hands. All in all, she was detained for 11 years. There she learnt that many young girls had been treated similarly, some as young as 10 or 13. From Plantungan she was sent to a rehabilitation centre in order to get used to the society again.

• Judge: Who captured you? Who detained you?
• Kinkin replied that they were military personnel, of the CPM and the army. The one who was most cruel, who tortured me the most was Lukman Sutresna. I asked the other prisoners why they treated me like this, they said that they have a target that the number of prisoners should be equal to the number of Communists.

Judge: Do you still feel the consequences? The witness replied that she often feels ill, that she has lost her hearing in one ear and that she has high blood pressure.

2. Expert witness Prof. Dr Saskia Wieringa

During her research she came across a lot of stories on sexual violence and also interviewed some victims. She stressed that we only know the stories of the survivors. Many stories of those who died because of sexual torture have disappeared. A common method of torture was to penetrate their vagina with sticks and bottles and then break those bottles, due to which they had internal bleeding, causing their death. Or they were raped to such an extent of brutality that they committed suicide or died of other effects. So we only have the voices of the survivors.

As women came out of prisons, she met many of them who told stories of sexual violence, but they never said that they happened to them – always to other women. Only much later, when she met them again in the context of the rapes of the Chinese women in May 1998, did they tell their own experiences of sexual violence.

There is a story, which was told to her in 1982: a newly married couple was arrested and they were forced to have sex in front of their interrogators, while the genitals of both partners were subjected to electric shocks. In all that pain, intercourse could not take place. They then took the husband away and raped her in front of her husband, laughing and saying that they could do it better.

Stories were circulated about women being raped in order to keep people in fear. Besides being raped, or gang raped, women were also kept captives as sex-slaves with the guards, or generals. Some were also forced to marry. At times their husbands were murdered so the militia or soldiers could marry the wife (istri diambil). They were often secondary wives and treated very badly in their husbands’ homes.

Women had no form of autonomy over their bodies. There were stories that when they were released they couldn’t go anywhere, they had no place to go, and therefore they stayed with their captors. Women were also subject to forced prostitution. There were also cases where their genitals and breasts were electrocuted. Forced pregnancies and forced abortions also occurred; sometimes the children were taken and sometimes they were left with the mothers. Sometimes women were kept in homes and were visited by soldiers and raped regularly.

Judge Jarvis asked prof. Wieringa what recommendations Komnas Perempuan has presented to the government. Wieringa replied: this commission recommends the state to uphold women’s rights, asks for state responsibility and for social support, such as reparations to victims.

Judge Jarvis: Could you elaborate more on sexual slavery? Wieringa:, in tutur (sharing stories) groups, stories were told of women who had been taken as secondary wives by military officers, who even after release stayed with their captives because they had no other place to go to. There still is a stigma on these women, who are framed as prostitutes. I myself encountered women, who were so happy to finally find their children again – even though these lived on the streets. These women tried to survive and rebuild their lives, attempting to give their children an education. Their children kept a distance from their mothers. Children asked: were you a whore too? Can you imagine the impact of this question for women? The stigma continues till today

Judge Nice: you spoke about stigmas. In Indonesian society or among the leadership, whose public expression would be most effective in breaking this stigma? Wieringa: President Jokowi needs to apologize.

7.3.6 Count 6: PERSECUTION

Prosecutor: Antarini Arna

1. Factual witness Mr Soerono Widojo (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

In 1965 Mr Soerono Widojo (78) was studying in the Soviet Union at the Lumumba University of Moscow. On the basis of his academic credentials – not his party membership – he had been granted a scholarship by the Indonesian welfare agency in Jakarta. These scholarships, provided by the Sukarno government, were intended for Indonesian students who wanted to study abroad. Soerono started study engineering in Moscow. He did not join any political organization, only an association for Indonesian students abroad.

After graduation in 1966 Soerono received a letter signed by the cultural attaché of the Indonesian embassy in Moscow, of which a copy was also sent to the military attaché, i.e. head of security of the Indonesian community in the SU. The letter summoned Soerono to report at the embassy for a screening. If he would not report before the 15th of July 1966 his passport would be revoked.

Soerono knew someone working at the embassy, who told him that a screening team at the embassy would ask Indonesian students to express loyalty to Suharto. If you declined, your passport would be revoked. Moreover, a friend of Soerono, who had also studied in Moscow, told him that on return to Indonesia you would be sent to Buru Island.

Fearing for his own safety, Soerono did not report at the embassy. Eventually he received another letter from the cultural attaché, declaring that his passport was no longer valid. Moreover, the embassy announced to the Indonesian community in the SU that there were doubts about the loyalty of 25 Indonesians living in the SU. The community was ordered to provide no assistance to these 25. Soerono later discovered that this list of 25 students was not the complete list. Other students also told him that they had been prohibited from returning to Indonesia.

Judge Sadr asks Soerono why he had chosen to speak from behind the curtain, and what fears he would face by openly speaking with the tribunal, since he lives in the Netherlands and has obtained Dutch citizenship. Soerono replied: my children have not yet obtained Dutch nationality and love Indonesia. If I would appear in public they would become known as well. It is still not safe in Indonesia; Suharto’s cronies are still in power. Even after Yusril Mahendra (a well-known politician ed.) had come a few years ago to invite us all back home.

2. Factual witness Ms Aminah (pseudonym, testified behind screen)

At the age of 21 years Ms Aminah arrived in Bulgaria on September 20, 1965, where she started studying language for one year, and eventually graduated in medicine in 1974. She obtained a scholarship via her sister, who was a member of Gerwani, to study in Bulgaria. She herself was not a member of the women’s organization.

She had heard about the events following October 1, 1965 on the Indonesian radio in Bulgaria. In July/August 1966 she was summoned by the Indonesian embassy for a screening. Ms Aminah went to the screening together with other students. During the screening there was a military man present. There they were asked about their family, activities of family members, and what their attitude was towards the Sukarno and Suharto governments. They were asked to sign a statement, which Ms Aminah only heard about at the embassy.

In dialogue with the embassy, Ms Aminah and the other students said they supported Sukarno and did not support the Suharto government. Subsequently they did not receive back their passports. Instead they received a statement signed by the consular employee of the embassy, stating that their passports had been revoked, without any further information. Friends who expressed loyalty to Suharto got their passports back. After the screening Ms Aminah only had a document that was valid in Bulgaria for a period of three months, making it unable for her to travel abroad. Ms Aminah was without a passport for 25 years.

Ms Aminah wants to return to Indonesia, but fears for her safety because of still prevailing stigma’s and oppressive parties in Indonesia. As long as the stigma on Gerwani is still so strong her safety is not guaranteed, she stressed.

Judge Sadr: Has your family in Indonesia experienced any kind of threat because of your decision not to return? Ms Aminah: They experienced far more serious repercussions than I did, and became direct victims of the Suharto government. But my family is also split. Some have not supported my decision. They feared problems that they might be accused of agreeing with my leaning towards Sukarno.

Replies by the prosecution:
In reply to questions of judge Sadr, the prosecution states that no statistics are available on the number of exiles living abroad, though they do have some (incomplete) indications of listed exiles in certain countries.

Judge Flinterman: Was it known at the time that the Indonesian government revoked quite a number of passports and thereby deprived these nationals of their identity? Prosecution: The Indonesian government claimed that there was no policy of prohibiting Indonesians to return to Indonesia. But all of them realized they might be murdered upon their return. And keep in mind that from 1965 until mid-1970s no one could speak up; the media was banned by the Suharto government, and public meetings and demonstrations were not allowed.

In reply to questions of judge FIinterman, the prosecution states that they have no numbers available on returning exiles. With regard to repercussions for exiles returning to Indonesia, the prosecution refers to the recent visit of an exile, now Swedish citizen [ed. Tom Elias], to Sumatra, who was followed by Indonesian security officials. He was arrested and later deported back to Sweden. The Prosecution has no recollection of cases in which exiles who had returned to Indonesia had to re-apply for Indonesian citizenship.

7.3.7 Count 7: ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES of MEMBERS and SYMPATHIZERS of the PKI
Prosecutor: Sri Suparyati

1. Factual witness Mr Astaman Hasibuan

The witness was called to testify about the disappearance of his father. The witness explained that his father was a member of the local branch of the Communist party and of the Regional Council (DPRD).

On October 13, 1965 a rally was held during which buildings of the trade union (Sarbupri) were destroyed and which resulted in the death of an employee of the Trade Union. His father no longer felt safe and fled to the south of the country, while the witness fled to the north. They split as they didn’t both want to die. For then their lineage would die as well – they are Batak, which is a patrilineal ethnic group.

His father was arrested and detained, and the witness does not know what happened to his father. However, he was told by friends that his father was held at the military headquarters (Kodam) where he was allegedly tortured, became paralyzed and eventually disappeared. From December 1965 till now there is no news about him. Pak Astaman himself was arrested twice but survived.

Years later, during a military tribunal, he was told that his father had escaped the facility. The witness does not believe this. He thinks his father’s records were destroyed and that his father was murdered. No one had seen or heard of his father after December 10 1965.

The judges asked whether he had known other people to whom this had happened. The witness told the court that he himself had been arrested twice after he had fled North and had hidden in a hut. He was taken to a temporary holding facility in a camp.

The witness testifies that there were 73 detainees in that camp, but half of them were taken away one night and never returned, they disappeared; although it was clear to him that some of them were murdered. Later on bodies had been found.

The bodies were identifiable but the mothers were too scared to identify them and bury them because they feared for their safety and lives of their other sons. Persons also disappeared from plantations, and this continued until March 1966. The soldiers were overseeing the plantations; five labour leaders were detained and one was murdered. Each company had a trade union leader and the Farmers’ Front (BTI, Barisan Tani Indonesia) also had one, who were members of the Communist party. The witness also testifies that his friends told him that all leaders of the labour union, the Communist party and the farmer’s union (BTI) were captured and killed. Other victims were small plantation owners and farmers. The State confiscated their lands; their families were stigmatized. Foreign companies also seized land, such as Goodyear, which got 2000 hectares of land previously owned by six villages – which disappeared. Also non-PKI members were killed, such as a worker from a news station, Nusantara. He was possibly killed because his wife was very beautiful.

When asked who was responsible for the detention and death, the witness says it was the district military, particularly the Pomda, the military police. When asked what their tasks were, the witness explained that they had different territories of operation. The district chief was in charge and established Teperda, under the Kodim command. In 1965 they set up the Komando Aksi to wipe out the Communists, including the PR, Lekra, BTI and Sarbupri. After being asked about the operations of the district military, the witness testified that it was founded to take action and/or terrorize Communists.

2. Factual witness Ms Intan Permatasari (pseudonym, testified behind screen)
Witness gives an emotional plea about the disappearance of her family members, 7 in total.
The father of the witness had first been a teacher and later he was elected into the local government. He had been elected multiple times and had held numerous positions. In 1963 he fell ill and became a pensioner. The doctored summoned him to go elsewhere for medical treatment.

In September 1965, the witness was living in a valley and wanted to go to the market. A tragedy had happened there on the September 30, her brother had been arrested, beaten and taken to a hospital. He was not in the hospital any more when she arrived, because he had been detained by Kodim without being told what he had been detained for.

Her father was also taken by the police a short time later, and she was told that it was due to the fact that they were members of the Communist party. Her mother had also been detained but was placed under house arrest. Her father had been detained elsewhere, but when she looked for him, he wasn’t there.

The witness testified that she kept on searching for her brother and father and that other family members had also been detained. Seven of her family members disappeared. Years later her youngest sister was also forcefully abducted. She was desperate: Lord, help your servant. And: Give us our right. We have suffered so much. We want to bury them, but where are they?

The witness was asked if she had ever received any reply from the authorities in writing or in person. She explains that she has never had an answer. The judges also asked whether she had ever testified before. She testified that she met researchers in her town and shared her story with them. This was the third time she had been a witness.

3. Expert witness Dr Dianto Bachriadi (Komnas HAM)

The Commissioner was present at the tribunal from day one. He told the court that an investigation into human rights violations had been carried out from 2008 to 2012, and that the entire indictment and the evidence presented at the hearings of the IPT Tribunal was confirmed by the National Commission’s investigation and its report. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the state must be held responsible for the atrocities.

Investigative measures into human rights are the task of the Commission, and this is stipulated in Indonesian law. The report had been submitted to the government. A while later the report was sent back with annotations. Indonesian law states that a response must be made to the annotations. The Commission did that, and a long time later it was returned again by a new Attorney General. The Commission responded to those questions as well but has not yet heard back from the Attorney General. All through this process, the conclusions of the Commission remained the same. The questions from the Attorney General were all related to administrative matters, not to the content. As the Report, for which 347 witnesses all over Indonesian testified, is still under embargo, the interviews cannot be made public.

The Attorney General has not rejected the report, because they have to do that by making a formal statement that they will stop the investigation. That has not been done. This in fact means an undue delay in a legal process. The Commissioner was of the opinion that they have accepted the report, but this is not certain.

An executive summary of the investigation has been provided. The Commissioner testified that it summarized the actual content and that the translation is accurate.

The Human Rights Commission has conducted ten investigations – into various human rights violations that have occurred in Indonesia. Only three of these investigations were followed up by the Attorney General. The fact that the investigation on the 1965 CAH has not been followed up is thus ‘normal’, in a negative sense. This means that impunity endures, that the ghost of the PKI even now after 50 years lives on, and that people live in continued fear. It also means that the land reform process has stalled. The Commission will keep pushing for the formal acceptance of the report. Anyway, the full report already circulates online, though the source is unclear.

The Commissioner stresses that reconciliation must start with truth finding

4. Expert witness Mariana Amiruddin (Komnas Perempuan)

Unlike the previous witness she is the official representative from the Commission and willing to provide a testimony. She had permission from the President to attend this hearing.  This Commission is not an NGO and is different from the Human Rights Commission. This commission was established by a regulation, after the May 1998 riots.

It has the mandate to document and analyse violations against women and to come up with recommendations. They have no mandate to do independent investigations.

• Their report is based on testimonies given to them and their partners.
• The most important recommendation is that women must be helped to recover, and their health, mental welfare and political rights must be restored. The women have faced an inhuman situation.

The State must remove the stigma placed upon these women. Steps must be taken to implement these recommendations, including meeting with parties and ministries. She confirmed that the evidence from her report is consistent with the evidence given in court the previous day. The Commissioner considered the Tribunal very important. It would help them to help the victims. The international attention will hopefully stimulate a national process to make the State better understand what are human rights, and which ones were violated in 1965.

7.3.8 Count 8: PROPAGANDA and HATE SPEECH

Prosecutor: Antarini Arna

1. Expert witness Prof. Dr Wieringa

Explained about the research she did on propaganda, since the early 1980s, particularly on the sexual slander regarding Gerwani.

Testified that the book written by the historian Nugroho Notosusanto is the most important book of propaganda. This book was written by an army historian trained by the CIA, but it completely misinterprets history.

A film entitled the ‘Betrayal of the PKI’ was also made based on this false interpretation of history. The book and the film blame the murder of the generals on the PKI and portray the PKI as an ‘enemy of the nation’ inciting the wider society, particularly the militias, to annihilate the Party. The film was compulsory watching for school children. Many of them later testified that they found it very traumatic.

Due to all this propaganda, the Indonesian people cannot study and look critically at the history of Indonesia.

The Judge asked whether the generals were involved in the propaganda. Saskia thinks they are. She is also of the opinion that the religious aspects, portraying the PKI as anti- religion had a major impact, because Indonesia is a very religious country. The PKI was also painted as anti-Pancasila, the national ideology of the nation. These constructions, and the story that Gerwani girls danced naked and castrated and murdered the generals justified the killings and the other CAH. They are still widely believed. The propaganda is still used to instil fear of Communism.

2. Expert witness Dr Herlambang Wijaya
He was asked to explain the substance of the propaganda and how this was spread in society. He explained that it was not like it was in Rwanda; in Indonesia the propaganda focused on other things. Propaganda methods were used by Seskoad (Sekolah Staf dan Komando Angkatan Darat, Army Staff and Command School) under its director Suwarto, who had been associated with the RAND Corporation

The newspapers in Indonesia gave wrong information about the death of the generals. Only two army-led newspapers were allowed to appear after October 1 1965. The generals were not seduced and castrated, as was published in the army-controlled newspapers. This was confirmed by the autopsy report, signed by both President Sukarno and General Suharto. Among certain circles this is known (such as scholars), but the Indonesian people don’t know this.

Propaganda films and books were published confirming New Order ideology. This was strengthened by a Museum and the Monument Pancasila Sakti. The film Pengkhianatan G 30 S-PKI (1984) for instance, was openly endorsed by president Suharto. Its aim was to portray Suharto as the hero who saved the nation. And the PKI as the devil, out to destroy that nation.  Indonesians have to attend compulsory indoctrination courses in school (the P4 Pancasila courses) and when you want to work in the civil service. They are indoctrinated to reject and hate communism. You needed a P4 certificate to be accepted. Novels written in the period also spread this propaganda. From experience, the expert witness explained that it was harder to work in the civil sector or at a university if you refused the indoctrination course (P4). You also needed a document stating that your lingkungan was bersih – that your surroundings were clean, i.e. that nobody in your family was associated with the PKI.

Judges asked the prosecution why the propaganda was a separate charge. The prosecution answered that it was because it has been so widespread and successful, even till this day.

7.3.9 Count 9: COMPLICITY of OTHER STATES

Prosecutor: Silke Studzinsky
1. Expert witness Dr Bradley Simpson

Mr Simpson is a historian who has researched the complicity of western states with the crimes carried out in Indonesia. The prosecutor asked him to explain the complicity of the other states.

He testified that the immediate background was the civil war of 1956 and 1957. The Unites States military aimed to isolate the PKI. The US ambassador reported that many generals, some 200 officers, were trained by the US in, for example, the areas of legal affairs, public safety and finance. The US hoped that these generals would take over army positions and take up civilian positions.

A program of Covert Action was set up in 1964, and direct action was taken against the PKI. An armed conflict was instigated through army operations. British Covert Operations intended to frustrate the PKI and stop the Indonesian army from taking action against Malaysia. This was different from the goal of the US. The CIA wanted the overthrow of Sukarno and was of the opinion that certain risks should be taken and proposed the use of propaganda. This was supposed to accelerate the tension between the PKI and the Indonesian army. This plan was accepted by the United States. There was cooperation with the British government from Singapore.

The US started to decrease military assistance and increased covert operations, aiming to provoke a clash between the army and the PKI. The expectations were that the army would win.

The prosecutor asks in what way they were complicit in the killings that unfolded in October and in how they intervened with the army. The witness testifies that this is a question that must be determined by what they knew was about to happen. In which ways they encouraged this, what means did they provide? It was determined by the US that the broad membership of the Communist party was innocent.

The US formed a working group and was under the impression that the army had to make a move on the PKI, because perhaps it wouldn’t have another chance. The CIA warned that if the army took action only against the generals, Sukarno would still have power. They wanted communism itself to be fought.

The Indonesian army requested communication expertise and in early November 1965 the US-trained Indonesian generals requested medicines and weapons. The US also provided the army with a secure communications system, and the US army could also listen in. The US also provided a list of alleged PKI leaders and members to the Indonesian army.

Over the course of time many reports were made to western embassies about the extent of the killings; these reports also stated that unarmed people were killed. Reports said all PKI members they could get their hands on were murdered and that the murders were widespread. General Nasution and the CIA were in daily contact. The British officer Reddaway, who had set up his office in July 1965, was an expert in psychological warfare.

It was also reported that, on plantations operated by US businessmen, plantation workers were murdered. Estimates were made that 300,000 people had been murdered; later they spoke of 400,000.

The prosecutor asked what the government wanted to achieve with these actions? The witness explained that this question should be answered carefully. The available evidence suggests that they hoped for a coup. Evidentiary records suggest that the US intervened quite decisively, because they had interests in the oil companies and financially the companies were under attack. The US wanted to achieve long-term goals, including to have US companies invited back to Indonesia on generous terms.

The witness was asked where he found his sources and if some sources have not been disclosed yet? He answered that the information has been made publicly available, but that he still lacked access to communication between military personnel and the job files of the military agency about the covert operations. He concluded that even though much information still has to be declassified, the current evidence, in his opinion, describes what the governments knew.

Judge Gittings: You referred frequently to UK and US officials who hoped the Indonesian army would lead an abortive coup against the PKI; did G30S come as a surprise to these officials? Simpson: Yes. However, through their covert operations they aimed at creating a climate of uncertainty and chaos in which the PKI might be led to strike against its opponents. The army would only strike against the PKI if the PKI acted first, thereby offering the army a justification to attack the PKI.

Judge Nice: What would be the counter narrative of your story? Simpson: There is a scholarly consensus that British, US and Australian governments were worried about left- wing developments in Indonesia. There is little debate on the facts I presented, because the sources I used are widely published.

Judge Nice: Did western powers know what was going to happen? Simpson: I don’t argue that they did; these operations were not aimed at setting up a genocide or dehumanizing Indonesian civilians. These operations amplified the anti-communist rhetoric of the army, in effect dismantling the PKI.

Judge Gittings: Australia is mentioned in the indictment. However, in the testimonies Australia is only address briefly. Is there more substantial evidence? Simpson: I would be happy to submit additional documents on this matter.

2. Expert witness Dr Herlambang Wijaya

Mr Herlambang elaborates on cultural control via propaganda.

The CIA established the CCF in the 1950s in Berlin, a cultural organisation, Congress for Cultural Freedom. The main objective of this organization was to alienate writers from communism. CIA provided financial assistance. Seven million dollars was injected, for instance, for the distribution of books and magazines throughout the world. In 1965 the signatories of the CCF came to Indonesia, invited by an army general. The intellectual groups that were involved in the CCF were connected with the socialist party (PSI) – that opposed the PKI, intellectuals such Mochtar Lubis, Taufik Ismael and Goenawan Mohamad. The CCF wrote a declaration, the ‘cultural manifesto’, very similar to the one made in Berlin, causing a conflict with LEKRA writers.

7.3.10 Prosecutors on the CHAIN of COMMAND

Prosecution: Two weeks after October 1, 1965, President Sukarno (decree 730/1965) appointed major-general Suharto as the minister and chief of the armed forces. In December 1965, a new policy on restoration of security and order (179/KOTI/1965) established the Operation Command (Kopkamtib), which was to restore security and order through physical, military and psychological operations. Chief of the Kopkamtib, Suharto, answered only to the president. Staff of Kopkamtib consisted of representatives of the air force, navy and police. Also a special task unit was created with representatives from other departments. (A flow chart shows the chain of command from Kopkamtib to village level, as well as other involved departments). The Kopkamtib sent out the investigation teams, Teperda, responsible for the interrogation and torture of so many prisoners.

7.3.11 Prosecution’s CLOSING STATEMENT

• This Statement was presented by Prosecutor Silke Studzinsky (annex 6).
• The panel of judges withdrew to prepare its preliminary statement. The witnesses and the public attended a ceremony to commemorate the victims, prepared by Welmoed Koekebakker and Evi Sutrisno.

The Registrar reconvened the session when the judges were ready to read their preliminary judgment (annex 7). When the judges withdrew after reading their judgement, emotions in the court room among the public, the prosecuting team and the witnesses were high. For the first time there was an international statement that serious crimes against humanity have been committed in Indonesia after the murder of six generals on the night of October 1 1965.

8. Aftermath till end 2015

8.1 Aftermath

Preparing the hearing of the People’s Tribunal on the 1965 Crimes Against Humanity in Indonesia was a very intense process undertaken by a large number of volunteers: the people demanding justice for the crimes against humanity committed in Indonesia after the action of the G30S group. Coordinated by the board of the Foundation IPT 1965 and the IPT general coordinator, the Organizing Committee, ultimately consisting of 10 highly professional and committed women managed to collect the evidence, conduct an intensive media campaign, organize the hearings themselves and socialize its results.

Although the final judgment has not yet been delivered, the IPT 1965 can be said to have had an important impact. Most promising are the reactions of the many Indonesian youths who have watched the live screenings or who attended the discussions. Their eyes have been opened and, as indicated by the meeting in Batu, late December 2015, they will continue the process of uncovering the crimes against humanity committed after the ‘events of 1965’, of reaching out to the surviving victims and of breaking the stigma around them, the PKI and its affiliated organizations and of leftist thinking in general.

Various forms of publications are planned; these include textbooks and other educational material, and two academic volumes. The website will be maintained and upgraded, so as to continue to provide information to those who are seeking it on internet. The hearings have been put on YouTube, after the quality of the sound was upgraded. A documentary film is planned.

At the international level lobbying to pay attention to the gross human rights violations in Indonesia will continue, possibly resulting in a UN resolution. A number of countries will be approached who we hope may support this process.

The issue will remain highly sensitive in Indonesia. The major NGOs working on human rights issues support the IPT 1965. Office space has been made available by the YLBHI in Jakarta, but so far there has not been any administrative support. Finding funding to support these activities will remain a huge challenge.

There were also negative reactions. The organizers were labeled ‘enemies of the state’ by various functionaries, including the Minister of Defense. To follow up the Minister of Defense’s statement, the Front Pancasila was waiting at the gate of Soekarno-Hatta Airport at the time when the delegation back home on 15 November 2015. They put up a big banner “Selamat Datang Pengkhianat Bangsa” (Welcome home Traitors of the Nation) (see:www.rappler.com/indonesia/112911-aliansi-anti-komunis-indonesia-tim-ipt-1965)

A group of police picked up the delegation and took us to the police station near the airport, while the other group of police helped to carry the bags out of the airport. A group of lawyers from the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, a Commissioner of the National Commission on Human Rights, and a human rights advocate from Kontras, as well as members of other human rights groups, also came to the airport to make sure that the delegation came back home safely. The police from the Witness and Victims Protection Institute accompanied the delegation till the members of the IPT delegation reached home.

In December the militia Pemuda Pancasila sent a letter ordering T. Mulya Lubis, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana and Uli Parulian to apologize to the Indonesian public for organizing the IPT 1965. The letter informed the three addressed persons that if they would not comply with this order the Pemuda Pancasila could not be held responsible for any unrest that might be the result.

The Tribunal is aimed as a first step in a series of advocacy activities towards ending the impunity around the genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated in 1965 and thereafter. The verdict produced by the judges at the Tribunal will serve as a basis for those advocacy efforts during the first months. The final judgment to be pronounced in July 2016 will serve as the basis of the international lobbying campaign.

8.2 Ongoing activities

8.2.1 Socialization of the results of the IPT within Indonesia and internationally

It is targeted at several audiences and various levels: the wider public; relevant government and non-government institutions working on human rights issues; international bodies; NGOs and community organizations including those of the victims, survivors and exiles; and the academic community. Where appropriate and possible, information dissemination to this effect is accompanied by active engagement by the IPT1965 members in a variety of events. The many researchers who have been involved will continue to publish their work and participate in conferences and seminars, drawing upon their experiences with the Tribunal.

8.2.2 Follow-up events

Until the end of 2015, follow-up events included the following:

1. a)  The first public discussion in December was conducted at the University of Indonesia, incollaboration with Semar UI ( Serikat Mahasiswa Progressive, Progressive Student Association). Abdul Wahid from Gajah Mada University told the audience about the involvement of Universities in the massacre.
2. b)  On 10 December, in collaboration with the Alliance for Freedom of Expression, Semarang, IPT 1965 conducted a one day discussion. The event included an art performance and a tribute to Wijaya Herlambang, who had testified during the hearings and who had passed away recently. The participants discussed a broad range of human right violations from Papua to Aceh, as the continuation of 1965 violence that have never been solved. The participants agreed that the 1965 massacre must be solved to avoid re- occurrence of army-led violence and violations.
3. c) Many discussions were conducted following the nobar of live streaming, such as in Airlangga University, conducted by KontrasSurabaya, in Jogjakarta conducted by the Social Movement Institute, and elsewhere.
4. d) On 26-27 December 2015, the IPT 1965 Jakarta Secretariat in collaboration with Omah Munir conducted a Focus Group Discussion. 22 young people from Aceh, Medan, Jakarta, Blitar, Jombang, Malang, Batu and Surabaya attended this FGD. At the end of the FGD, they agreed to establish a network to follow up the IPT 1965 judgment; Omah Munir will be the coordinator of the network.

8.2.3 The following activities will be continued or set up in 2016:

1. a)  International advocacy, particularly towards the UN Human Rights bodies, to increase the international attention to the genocide and other crimes against humanity committed in Indonesia after 1965;
2. b)  Advocacy in Indonesia to stimulate the development of a political, legal and socio- cultural process to deal with the genocide and other crimes against humanity committed after October 1st 1965
3. c)  Coordination of a media campaign on the genocide and other crimes against humanity in Indonesia committed after October 1st 1965, in order to help create a climate in which the victims and their families can be rehabilitated, their dignity restored and possibly reparation can be received; this may lead to a process of reconciliation in the country;
4. d)  Preparation of educational materials for various target groups, such as students, on the ‘events of 1965’ and their aftermath, as knowledge of this period is still dominated by army propaganda;
5. e)  Building an integrated documentation and archive system.

8.3
8.3.1 Media coverage

In Indonesia the media, both mainstream and social media, very actively reported on the hearings and the other activities surrounding the IPT 1965. Annex 9 contains a preliminary list of online media reporting. The website of the tribunal attracted much attention – both from visitors and from hackers. In Indonesia it was blocked for one day.

Media

8.3.2 Media statistics

8.3.3 Media team

The media team was assisted by 32 volunteers, 8 of whom had been active since the beginning. It had organised itself in 8 working teams:

1. a)  Press officer (Lea Pamungkas/Reza Muharam)
2. b)  News (Aboeprijadi Santoso, Joss Wibisono, Yanti Mualim, Lina Sidarto, Bari Muchtar, Rina Sitorus)
3. c)  Translation (Citrayanthi, Vicky Sakti, Edith Koesoemawiria, Yatun Sastramidjaya)
4. d)  Website (Bangaip, Jason )
5. e)  Technical (Henry Ismail)
6. f)  Livestreaming (Theo Pramono, Ras, Victor, Daniel Rudy Haryanto, Lexy)
7. g)  Coordination livestreaming(Reza)
8. h)  Photography (Gogol, Willem, Ariel)

Ongoing tasks of the media team:

•   Editing visual and audio-visual material
•   Transcripts audio-visual materials
•   Translation
•   Uploading audiovisual material on the website
•   Upgrading the materials on the YouTube channel
•   Providing subtitles for the YouTube channel

ANNEX 1:

Public Statement by panel of judges of the International People’s Tribunal on 1965 crimes against humanity in Indonesia

An international tribunal of experts in human rights law and Asian history has been established to examine the largely forgotten episode of the 1965-66 mass killings and other crimes against humanity in Indonesia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are believed to have been killed, imprisoned, tortured or have otherwise suffered during this period. The International People’s Tribunal on 1965 crimes against humanity in Indonesia (Tribunal) will meet at The Hague 10-13 November 2015, when the judges will hear detailed evidence presented by the prosecution.

The Tribunal is an initiative of the International People’s Tribunal 1965 (IPT 1965) Foundation (Stichting), which was formally established in 2014 by a group of victims in exile and in Indonesia, as well as by human rights activists, intellectuals, artists, journalists and academics, and many other groups. It had been prepared for one year. The Tribunal follows the long and distinguished record of peoples’ tribunals, beginning with the Russell Tribunal in 1966.

The prosecution case alleges that crimes against humanity were committed on a large scale during the mass killings, and that crimes and injustices arising from them have continued to be committed. The case is based on extensive enquiry carried out by a large team of researchers. Material to be brought forward will include documents, audio and visual materials, witness testimonies, victim impact statements, and other forms of evidence.

As a people’s tribunal, the Tribunal derives its moral authority from the voices of victims, and of national and international civil societies. The Tribunal will have the format of a formal human rights court, but it is not a criminal court. It has the power of prosecution but no power of enforcement. The essential character of the Tribunal will be that of a Tribunal of Inquiry.

Individual members of the Tribunal have extensive knowledge of international and human rights law and of this period of Indonesian history. The judges of the Tribunal will examine the evidence presented by the prosecution, develop an accurate historical and scientific record and, applying principles of international customary law, public international law and Indonesian law to the facts as found, will deliver a reasoned judgment. They will seek to establish, without fear or favour, the truth about these historical events, in the hope that this will contribute to justice, peace and reconciliation.

The Tribunal arises out of a burning concern that, half a century later no serious effort has been made within Indonesia to investigate the nature and extent of the alleged crimes. No perpetrators have been brought to justice, and these alleged incidents remain relatively unknown internationally. Further, none of the victims has received an apology or any form of redress. At best there have been limited attempts at fact-finding and reparation in a few localities. Most of these have met with opposition, sometimes violent, from political forces apparently hostile to any attempt to establish the truth.

This unwillingness or failure to act has persisted in spite of repeated demands made, especially since the end of the Suharto government in 1998. This is notwithstanding the clear statement made in May 2000 by then President Abdurrahman Wahid that ́to achieve true reconciliation we need to have an in depth enquiry by the legal apparatus, if we can still get clear proof…. ́.

The findings of a 2012 report by the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) on crimes against humanity during 1965-66 have been ignored by the Indonesian government. While the report does not attempt to extrapolate numbers of victims nationwide, overwhelming evidence is given about ‘widespread and systematic’ killings, exterminations, enslavement and forced labour, forced eviction and banishments, arbitrary deprivation of freedom, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence and enforced disappearances. These crimes are defined as crimes against humanity according to Indonesia’s Law No. 26/2000 establishing its Human Rights Court. Komnas HAM recommended further investigations by the Attorney General, and that the government consider forming a non-judicial truth and reconciliation commission, as provided in that Law.

The government of Indonesia has been invited to present its own view of these events to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal will consider carefully all requests for representation by any interested party. After its formal session in The Hague, the Tribunal will continue to work towards producing a verdict based on the materials and evidence presented there, and if necessary it will seek further evidence or clarification. It will present its findings in a public forum some time in 2016, and will communicate the outcome to the State of Indonesia in the expectation that this will lead to serious consideration and, if or where necessary, judicial or other action.

The Hague
17 October 2015

ANNEX 2: Biographical information judges

Mireille Fanon- Mendès-France

Currently, she is UN expert, chair of the Working Group for people of African descent. President of the Frantz Fanon Foundation. Has worked as legal adviser at the French National Assembly. Former professor of general didactics and literature. Has worked at the UNESCO Press. As judge, she has participated in many people’s tribunals of the Permanent People’s Tribunal based in Rome, Italy.

Cees Flinterman
Cees Flinterman is honorary professor of human rights at Utrecht University and Maastricht University since November 2007. Before that he was inter alia professor of human rights and director of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, and Director of the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research (1998-2007), professor of constitutional and International law at Maastricht University (1982-1998) and Dean of the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University (1984-1986). Earlier he worked at Leiden University, the University of Ghana, the Ghana Law Reform Commission and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

From 2011-2014 Cees Flinterman was a member (and rapporteur) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (2011-2014). Before that he was inter alia an alternate member of the UN Sub-Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities from 1986-1991. He was the chair of the Netherlands delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights from 1993-1994 and Vice-Chairperson of the 49th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1993). From 1996 – 1999 he was a member of the Netherlands delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. He served as a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) from 2003 – 2010. He has also been a member of the board of a number of national and inter non-governmental organizations, such the International Service for Human Rights, the Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions the People’s Decade for Human Rights Education, the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, and the Netherlands section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM). He is presently the chair of the foundation Human Rights in the Picture.

His research interests relate to the United Nations system of human rights, human rights and foreign policy, public international law and (comparative) constitutional law, gender and human rights. His publications include: Flinterman, C. (associate ed.) & H.B. Schoepp- Schilling (ed.) The Circle of Empowerment. Twenty-five years of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. The Feminist Press (2007); Flinterman, C. & Van Genugten, W.J.M., eds., Niet-Statelijke Actoren en de Rechten van de Mens: Gevestigde Waarden, Nieuwe Wegen, (2003); Flinterman, C. & Baehr, P. and Senders, M. Innovation and Inspiration: Fifty Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1999).

JOHN GITTINGS is a writer and journalist who has specialized in modern Chinese and Asian history and in peace studies. He worked for many years for The Guardian (London) as East Asia Editor and Foreign Leader-writer, and covered major events in China for them from the 1970s onwards. More recently, he helped to edit the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace (2010) and has published a study of peace thinking from ancient times till today (The Glorious Art of Peace, OUP, 2012). He carried out research for The Guardian into the events of 1965-66 in Indonesia, on the 25th anniversary in 1990, and he reported from Jakarta during the East Timor crisis in 1999.

He was educated at Midhurst Grammar School and at Oxford University where he gained a first-class degree in 1961 in Oriental Studies. He wrote his first book on China at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (The Role of the Chinese Army, OUP, 1966). He later worked in Chile and Hong Kong, and taught Chinese politics at the Polytechnic of Central London (now the University of Westminster). In 1984 he published, with Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Steele, a study of the politics of the cold war (Superpowers in Collision, Penguin Books).

John Gittings now lives near Oxford where he moved to with his late wife Aelfthryth after leaving The Guardian in 2003. Together they brought up four sons who now live in England, Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong. He is a Research Associate of the China Institute at London University (SOAS) and continues to lecture and write mainly on peace philosophy and history, recently focusing on aspects of the first world war.

His writings include ‘The Indonesian Massacres, 1965-1966: Image and Reality’, in Mark Levene & Penny Roberts, ed., The Massacre in History (New York: Berghahn, 1999). His website is www.johngittings.com and he has a peace studies page at https://www.facebook.com/gittingsPeace.

Helen Jarvis

Helen Jarvis has worked on issue relating to genocide in Cambodia since the mid-1990s, with Yale University’s Cambodian Genocide Program; the Cambodian Government Task Force for the Khmer Rouge Trials; and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) as Chief of Public Affairs and then Chief of the Victims’ Support Section.

Her relevant publications include Getting away with genocide? Elusive justice and the Khmer Rouge Trials (co-author with Tom Fawthrop), the Cambodia section of ABC-Clio’s Modern Genocides database, the Cambodia volume in ABC-Clio’s World Bibliographical Series; and “Mapping Cambodia’s ‘killing fields’, Chapter 14 of Material Culture: the archaeology of 20th century conflict. She holds both Australian and Cambodian nationality and is currently living in Phnom Penh.

Zak Yacoob

Retired Justice Zak Yacoob has been blind from infancy and studied at the Arthur Blaxall school for Blind in Durban, South Africa. He completed a law degree at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. While at University, and during practice, as an advocate from 1991 to 1998 Yacoob was a member of the underground of the African National Congress and community organizations involved in anti-apartheid and community activities including the United Democratic Front.

Zak Yacoob also advised local-government bodies, the National Land Committee and the Department of Finance on giving effect to and compliance with the final constitution; attended international conferences and workshops largely on human and socio-economic rights and on constitutionalism, human rights, disability and blindness; received the 2013 Felicia and Sydney Kentridge Award for Service to the Law in Southern Africa; was awarded two honorary doctorates in law; was a chancellor of the University of Durban -Westville; taught and teaches constitutional law at universities and Law Schools in America, India and S. Africa continues to engage in voluntary activities both in and out of South Africa in the fields of judicial and legal education, socio-economic rights, disability rights and HIV and AIDS.

He has a particular interest in service delivery for the development and empowerment of blind and partially sighted, as well as deaf and hard of hearing persons. Yacoob has participated as one of the judges in the commission of enquiry held in London in March 2014, concerning the propriety of the conviction of the Cuban Five by the United States of America.

ANNEX 3 : Welcome statement by Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, general coordinator Foundation IPT 1965

On the occasion of the opening of the International People’s Tribunal on 1965crimes against humanity in Indonesia The Hague, November 10 – 13 2015.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This year it is 50 years ago that the darkest period in post-colonial Indonesian history began: the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, large scale imprisonment under inhuman conditions, torture, slave labour, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, and other forms of persecution. Thousands of the nation’s most promising intellectual youth became exiles. The Indonesian Communist Party was destroyed. The military dictatorship under General, later President Suharto sharply curtailed the human rights of Indonesian citizens. To this day impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity reigns and the victims are not rehabilitated but instead seen as guilty for the suffering they and their family members experienced.

Not only impunity, but persecution itself continues. Militias are allowed or stimulated to break up meetings of victims as in Yogyakarta, Bukittinggi and Solo; a Swedish national and Indonesian exile and member of our IPT network was deported after visiting the mass grave where his father was buried. A student journal dedicated to the events of 1965 in Salatiga was withdrawn and burned. There is continued harassment of human rights defenders and two weeks ago the launches of books, an exhibition and a film showing on this period scheduled at the Ubud Writers’ and Readers’ Festival had to be cancelled as the organizers were threatened that they might lose the permit for the entire event. Indonesian students volunteering for this Tribunal were warned that they might lose their scholarships. Thus the rights constitutionally guaranteed to Indonesian citizens, of free speech and of association, are not upheld.

The propaganda campaign that incited the army and its associated militias to commit these crimes against humanity has still not been officially debunked. The Communist Party is still portrayed as anti-religious, intent on breaking up the nation, and as stimulating sexual perversions. Even human rights defenders these days are accused of being new-style Communists. History books repeat the lies produced since the murder of the generals on October 1 1965. The extent of the mass murders is not known, the state has not taken any responsibility for the mass crimes committed under its jurisdiction. Nor have other states who were aware of the large scale killings at the time but did nothing to stop them, indeed provided the army with supplies they needed to carry out their criminal duties, accepted their responsibility.

National efforts to engage in a process of truth finding prior to reconciliation so far have failed. The impressive 2012 report of the National Human Rights Commission in six regions which should have formed the basis of a comprehensive programme of truth finding, justice and reconciliation has not led to a follow up from the National Attorney’s office. The full report is still not released, its contents hidden from public scrutiny.

To this day the Indonesian people are denied the right to truth, to justice, to rehabilitation and the guarantee of non-recurrence. The Indonesian youth is brought up with lies and in ignorance. The stigma of their grandparents and parents is carried over into the third generation. It is time to break down the vicious cycle of denial, distortion, taboo and secrecy surrounding the events of 1965. Yet lies will always be disclosed in history. The truth cannot remain hidden.

Therefore direct victims of the mass crimes against humanity committed in Indonesia after October 1 1965, who are living both within Indonesia and abroad, and their family members, supported by human rights lawyers, activists, artists, journalists and researchers who have long worked on this period, have come together to bring these crimes against humanity to the international level. We have set up the Foundation IPT 1965 to organize the International People’s Tribunal on 1965crimes against humanity in Indonesia. We have collected material that we bring before this Tribunal, to consider without fear or favour.

In this Tribunal the victims will speak out. They have been silenced and abjected till now. The material brought before the Tribunal will provide a public record of the mass killings and other crimes against humanity committed after October 1 1965. The Tribunal will help open up a space for public debate on the history of Indonesia, on its postcolonial ambitions, on its efforts to build social justice, on its attempts to establish the rule of law. The Tribunal is a moral instrument to help break through the cycle of violence in Indonesia. We, the people who establish this Tribunal say clearly: Never Again!

We affirm the uncompromising hope that justice is possible in Indonesia and that human rights and rule of law are recognized and respected.

Our aim is to stimulate a process of healing. To help Indonesia realize its own stated aims and potential to be a country in which the coming generations will live peaceful and secure lives. Therefore the truth must be established. The wounds in Indonesian society are too deep. The patterns of violence and repression are firmly ingrained in the security apparatus and condoned by interested powerful political and socio-economic groups . As long as Indonesia’s history is distorted in people’s minds and in its educational system, the country cannot learn from its past mistakes and there is no guarantee the violations may not re-occur.

As General Coordinator of the Foundation IPT 1965 set up in 2014 I wish to thank all the people who have worked and still work so hard to make the Tribunal whose hearings start today, happen.

In the first place our panel of judges: Mireille Fanon- Mendès-France Cees Flinterman
John Gittings

Helen Jarvis Geoffrey Nice Shadi Sadr Zak Yacoob

103

Our prosecutors:
Todung Mulya Lubis (Chief prosecutor) Antarini Arna
Bahrain Makmun
Uli Parulian Sihombing
Silke Studzinsky
Sri Suparyati
Agung Wijaya

Our Registrar: Szilvia Csevar and her team

Our Organizing Committee:
Helene van Klinken, coordinator volunteers, secretariat
Annet van Offenbeek, member OC, security
Lea Pamungkas, coordinator media team Netherlands
Ratna Saptari member OC, member, co- editor research report
Dolorosa Sinaga, media and arts team Jakarta
Sri Tunruang, treasurer
Artien Utrecht, member OC
Sri Lestari Wahyaningrum, co-coordinator Indonesia team, co-editor research report Saskia Wieringa, chair Foundation IPT, coordinator research report

Our Advisory Board: Jan Pronk
Jan Breman
Martha Meijer
Nico Schulte Nordholt
Joshua Oppenheimer Indai Sajor
Frederiek de Vlaming Abram de Swaan Galuh Wandita
Ben White
Herlambang Wiratraman
Syamsiah Ahmad
Mulyandari Alisyah

A special thanks to the witnesses and the expert witnesses whose testimonies support the indictment. It is their courage to testify in the Tribunal that will bring the crimes against humanity committed to light.
As well as the members of our media team and the many other volunteers.
We also thank the many people who have contributed to our crowd funding campaign and our other funders.

This Tribunal is dedicated in the first place to the victims and their family members, including those who were murdered or disappeared. As well as to the future generations in the hope they will be better able to assess honestly the past of their country. Justice for the victims means justice for the future of Indonesia.

The Hague, 10 November 2015

ANNEX 4: Opening Statement Chief Prosecutor Todung Mulya Lubis

Let me begin my opening statement by asking one simple question: Why are we here? It is indeed very important to answer this question because only by honestly answering the said question we would then know what to expect, what to achieve and what to do to overcome any and all possible challenges that lie in front of us. I come all the way from Jakarta together with most of the prosecutorial team. Most witnesses and experts come from various cities in Indonesia. The honorable judges too come from various countries. And the organizers mostly come from Jakarta; they also have a secretariat in Holland. We have spent countless hours preparing ourselves for this tribunal and I believe you have also spent a great deal of hours going through all materials and initial submissions. Clearly, we will be spending days and perhaps months digesting and examining all the submissions, statements and evidence. I cannot imagine how much energy and emotions that will be needed to finally finish the work, and I am pretty sure that it is not going to be easy at all. We will have to come to terms with ourselves.

50 years ago, on September 30, in the middle of night, atrocities begun. A number of military generals were killed and transported to Lubang Buaya (Crocodile Hole) in the eastern part of Jakarta where an air force base was located. Allegedly, the killing of those military generals were done by the members of Partai Komunis Indonesia. It has been described further as an attempted coup d’état to overthrow the government of President Sukarno. Interestingly, the killing of those military generals have been used as a justification for going after Partai Komunis Indonesia which was at that time considered as the largest and most militant party.

The Partai Komunis Indonesia has been accused as the party behind the failed coup. It was said that there was no one single argument to justify the coup and that the party behind it was allegedly also the party behind the movement against the government in late 1940s, which is known as the Madiun Affair. The Partai Komunis Indonesia, therefore, as a result was declared as an enemy of the people, enemy of the nation, which of course must be crushed. The Partai Komunis Indonesia, needless to say, was regarded as traitor of the nation. Once someone is a traitor, that person will remain a traitor. It is under this kind of environment and social psychology that a massive killing of people associated with the Partai Komunis Indonesia was started, a killing that according to various sources resulted in the death of at least 500.000 people. Amnesty International came up with a higher number, namely close to 1.000.000 people. Honestly, no one knows how many people have been brutally and inhumanely killed by the military and militias from various social organizations. It is perhaps one of the historical and human tragedies that needs to be investigated further.

1965 is not only about mass killings of those regarded as Communists or sympathizers of the Partai Komunis Indonesia. No one can deny that countless innocent people who were totally unrelated to the Partai Komunis Indonesia were likewise tragically killed. They may be friends, relatives and spouses and children who had nothing to do with the Partai Komunis Indonesia. They were killed simply because of their associations with persons who happened to be members or sympathizers of the Partai Komunis Indonesia, they were guilty by association.

The military and militias organizations that were involved in the mass killings unconstitutionally took the law into their hands and rendered the verdict that those directly and indirectly related to the Partai Komunis Indonesia had to be killed. There has never been any due process of law, there had never been any recognition of the presumption of innocence, and the mere fact that those people were associated with the Partai Komunis Indonesia have been used to condemn them as Communists and therefore deserved to be killed. No legal process was needed. Can you imagine the depths of darkness? That was the darkest year of Indonesia’s history, Rule of Law, human rights and human civilization. After World War II, after Hitler and the Nazis, the mass killings in aftermath of 1965 in Indonesia must have been one of the worst atrocities in our human history.

1965 tells more than mass killings. 1965 also tells of enslavement, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearances, persecution through propaganda, and complicity of foreign countries notably the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia. No word can explain the magnitude of sufferings experienced in bodies and minds of people, and that suffering is continuing.

50 years is not a short time by any means and yet, the wounds and pains stayed in the blood of the people, the relatives and children, and the grandchildren, not to mention the whole nation. The truth has to be told, and there is no condition for that. It is an absolute necessity that the truth is told in its entirety, honestly and sincerely. The wounds and pains will never be healed without truth telling. History will not be completed without truth being unraveled. History cannot possibly be whitewashed. The burden is upon our shoulders. We will carry the burden if we fail to unravel the truth. Because only by knowing the truth we can start healing the wounds and the pains. Needless to say that it is a prerequisite that truth be told before we can proceed to find justice, to reconcile and to forgive. Of course, no one will be able to forget the worst human tragedy that they faced, but it is my belief that people will be able to come to terms, to reconcile with the past.

Honorable Judges,

As mentioned earlier there are 9 counts which are part of crimes against humanity committed by the state of Indonesia particularly the military and state apparatus in concert with certain elements of social organizations. Moreover, it can also be stated that the state of Indonesia violated its inherent obligations as stipulated in customary international law. Each count will be further described with evidences supported by factual witnesses and experts if necessary. We will present them one by one when the respective count is submitted to the honorable judges in due time. It is our sincere hope that the honorable judges will have relatively complete description and evidence in order to fully understand about the so called crimes against humanity committed by the state of Indonesia since 1965. Your Honors, the crimes have not stopped. Some of the crimes continue, they are continuing crimes. Stigma inherently attached to all relatives, spouses and children of the alleged Communists have not been lifted. The stigma has degraded the dignity of the persons.

Your Honors, it is our sincere hope that your honors will be able to acquire all relevant material and evidence, to examine them and to understand about the magnitude of gross and systematic violations of human rights because only by doing so then your honors will be able to understand why our indictment charges the state of Indonesia committing crimes against humanity.

Now, we may perhaps answer the question raised earlier: Why are we here? The answer is because we want to find the truth, the nation wants to find the truth. We have been waiting for more than 50 years and despite all the efforts to persuade the government to initiate a thorough investigation and legal action. Ironically, we have seen no genuine attempt by the government to resolve all the gross and systematic violations of human rights which took place since 1965. The people associated with 1965 have always been stigmatized and discriminated against. It seems that they have been treated as pariahs or outlaws. Nothing has changed even though we entered the Reformasi Era where democracy, Rule of Law and human rights seem to be more respected. Consciously and unconsciously the attitude is to forget the past, and focus more on the future. What past is past. Don’t look back, don’t open the wounds.

But the wound has never healed. It remains. It needs to be healed, and to heal it requires the truth to be told. Tirelessly all the victims together with human rights activists continue their fight to find the truth at all cost. We believe that the truth cannot be hidden all the time, one day it will come into the light. It is in this connection we highly appreciate the investigation of the National Commission of Human Rights which concluded that what happened in 1965 onwards constitute crimes against humanity. There is light in the end of the tunnel, and that prompted us to also pursue truth and justice in our own way, a way that is less travelled. This is what brought us here before you, Your Honors.

We come all the way from Indonesia not without risk. As human beings we are nervous and worried. We are worried because in our beloved country the matter related to 1965 atrocities is still taboo, not subject to discussion and deliberation. The government refuses to openly discuss the matter and if there are discussions then very likely those discussions will be banned like what happened with Ubud Writers and Readers Festival in Bali last week. Joshua Oppenheimer could not show his films, The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence, to the public. Of course this is not to say that no one attempted to hold the discussions and show the films, however, they were confronted by the police and by groups who called themselves as ‘anti-communist’ and also the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam). The bans have been brutal and violent.

Your Honors, we cannot contemplate what will happen to us when we return home from here. It will be very likely that we will be accused of drying out dirty linens in the open, exposing the dark sides of our nation and society, and therefore will be regarded as traitors to the nation. We will not rule out the possibility of being questioned by the authorities, or even worse detained. The fact that President Joko Widodo has already refused to apologize leads us to a conclusion that the government seemingly does not want to deal with anything related to the atrocities that happened from 1965 onwards. Be that as it may, I have to underline the fact that we have come to a time where no delay is justified, and truth has to be found. No matter what. Please bear in mind that most of the victims have died already, and those who are still alive are apparently already too old. Soon their time will come. Therefore, in the name of truth and justice, we must proceed with this Tribunal with the hope that we will find the truth, we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. In the end, we really hope that the government will listen, will do its utmost to have a genuine reconciliation and what follows after that. After all, humanity should be regained, wrong must be corrected, and justice must be pursued.

As I said earlier this is not a tribunal in the legal sense, and you are not the judges vested with all the power. We, the prosecutorial team, are not really prosecutors. But we are functioning and striving together to find the truth and justice. It is our hope that your courage and wisdom will take us to the harbor where we can sail back home with truth and justice in our hand.

ANNEX 5: Indictment

The Prosecutor of the International People’s Tribunal 1965, pursuant to his/her authority under the Charter of the IPT 1965, charges:

the State of Indonesia

with the commission of crimes against humanity including GENOCIDE and violations of INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW provisions, as set forth below:

The accused:

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.

The accusations:

After the murder of the 6 generals and 1 lieutenant in the night of September30 – October 1 1965 by the G30S group a campaign of annihilation of people and organizations associated with the Indonesian Communist Party was waged. This campaign consisted of a hate propaganda aimed at painting those alleged to belong to the PKI as atheist, amoral, anti- Pancasila and hypersexual. The army and the militias under its control killed hundreds of thousands of alleged members and sympathisers, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people without trial, and subjected them to torture including sexual and gender-based violence. Other crimes against humanity committed included forced labour and deportation, including the revocation of passports. The campaign of hate propaganda continues to this day. As a result of these crimes against humanity an entire national group 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 held responsible for the acts committed against them.

State responsibility:

The crimes against humanity referred to above were committed under the full responsibility of the State. General Suharto assumed immediately on October 1 de factor control of the armed forces. On October 5th he established the Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (Kopkamtib) to implement the liquidation of the PKI and alleged sympathisers. This Command operated under General Suharto’s orders. 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 and in March of the following year he became the acting President himself; in 1967 he was appointed full President. 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 and to this day no official apology has been pronounced nor has any perpetrators o the crimes against humanity listed above been prosecuted. Impunity reigns to this day.

Charges:
1. Mass killings

The actions of the G30S group in the night of September 30 1965 only involved military personnel. It was presented as a ‘failed coup’, orchestrated by the PKI which was intended to destroy the nation. After demolishing the G30S group, General Suharto chose a two-pronged attack. He immediately embarked upon a propaganda campaign A first step was to ban all newspapers allowing only army-controlled editions to appear. Secondly, he set about mobilizing the security apparatus that would both organize the mass murders and propagate the lies that his team of psychological army experts came up with the establishment of a new Operations Command to Restore Order and Security Kopkamtib, Komando Operasi Pemulihan Keamanan dan Ketertiban (Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order). On October 14 Major General Suharto was appointed army commander by President Sukarno. He had thus seized full authority over the army. But before that he had already sent orders to Aceh to destroy the PKI at the beginning of October.

Immediately after his promotion, he ordered troops from the Army Paracommando Regiment (RPKAD, Resimen Para Komando Angkatan Darat) under Colonel Sarwo Edhie to leave for Central Java in order to demolish the remnants of troops involved in the G30S actions there and to organize attacks against the PKI and its associated organisations. With the deployment of these troops the mass killings and mass arrests started in that area. The killings thus started in Aceh, where the army had long trained civil militias and then went on in Central and East Java, North Sumatera and from December onwards in Bali (where some 80.000 people were massacred, the highest death toll per capita).

The killings were carried out under the following chain of command. The head of the Kopkamtib (Pangkopkamtib) was the main official responsible. An instruction of December 21, 1965, ordered local Kopkamtib officers to identify the leaders of the PKI. These officers then drew up lists of leaders of the PKI and their associated organisations, on the basis of which arrests were made and extrajudicial executions took place.

The precise number of those murdered is not known. Cribb (1990) published the first full scale study of the extent of the murders and concludes that the death toll was probably some 500.000. Amnesty International (1977) had earlier given a number of around one million. Sarwo Edhie is alleged to have said that he had been responsible for the milling of some three million people. There are many hiatuses in the count of how many were murdered. The best authority is the organisation that was responsible for the military part, Kopkamtib. The Command produced a report in 1966 which was never made public, and which quotes a figure of one million deaths by that time. Most killings were carried out after compiling lists of the names of the victims which were then dibon, taken from prisons and never returned, neither to the prisons, nor to their homes.

The PangKopkamtib has been formed on 1 November 1965 and given its mandate by Former President Sukarno to keep security and order in Indonesia. Subsequently the PangKopkamtib issued an order/directive (KEPI/KOPKAM/12/1965) on 21 December 1965 ordering/requesting local military leaders (the Pangdam) to make lists of the PKI members and/or the members of the PKI-affliated organizations who had to be killed.

Immediately after the order to compile the list of PKI members/affiliates, the killing, arrests and torture started. In Maumere (Pantai Wairita, Kampung Flores Timur, Polsek Gelinting) mass killings against the members of the PKI and/or the members of the PKI-affiliated organizations occurred in late December 1965. The mass killings in the area resulted in 589 civilians died. According to the Komnas HAM Report, torture and inhuman treatments following the PangKopkamtib order occurred in the Moncong Loe Camp and the Buru Island Camp where members of the PKI and/or the PKI-affiliated organisations had been sent.

In relation to mass killings, on 8 November 1973 the Attoney General Office (AGO) issued an instruction (Nomor instr-007/J.A/11/1973) to local prosecutor offices in Indonesia not to prosecute the cases on killings against the members of the PKI and/or the members of the PKI-affiliated organizations. Also, they must consult with the Laksusda (local military units) in order to provide evidence that should justify the killings against the PKI members and/or the PKI-affiliated organizations. Also, they were requested by the AGO not to involve media.

The investigations made by the team in NTT, headed by Mery Kolimon eg found that on the tiny island of Alor alone minimally 380 people were murdered. While in the nearby island of Flores between 800 – 2000 people were murdered between February and March 1966.

The total number of deaths is as yet not known; a count of one million is possibly conservative. Most people were killed in unknown places and their deaths were never officially accounted for. These are thus cases of enforced disappearance. A nationwide research on the extent of the mass murders that collects data in all villages is needed to reach an estimate that is closer to the truth.

2. Arbitrary imprisonment

The detentions were often arbitrary, as were the decisions on who to kill. Possibly one million people were detained (Amnesty International 1977, see also Kroef 1976-7). But the official figures given vary widely. Hardly anyone of the prisoners was ever given a warrant for their arrest or detention. Only very few prisoners were ever tried. Most ended up for many years in either slave labour camps or in ordinary, overcrowded prisons, where they had to try to survive in horrendous circumstances. Many perished. A system of classification of prisoners was devised by psychologists. The tests were supposed to measure the level of  Communistness. On the basis of these tests prisoners were divided into categories A, B. and C. Category A prisoners were supposedly directly involved and they were mostly tried and convicted (often to death). Category C prisoners were released after a number of years. Category B prisoners stayed in prison for periods of up to 14 years. Given the prison conditions, categorisation was extremely important. The distinction between B and C might mean the difference between surviving and dying. Thus psychologists took the place of judges. All over the country these tests were rolled out. Also in faraway Timor for instance prisoners were classified in A, B or C. Here the A and B category prisoners were mostly killed.

Although it was variously reported that all Category C prisoners were released by the beginning of the 1970s, (for instance President Suharto said so on January 1 1972), in 1975 a new Presidential Decree was issued (no 28/1975) in which the specifications of the various subclassifications of Category C were further detailed, according to the level of involvement of the person concerned in the activities of the above mentioned organizations. C1 referred to individuals alleged to be involved in the 1948 Madiun affair and who were considered to be still sympathetic to the Communist cause. C2 included all persons who were said to be members of the PKI or its affiliated organizations. While in C3 all people who were considered to be ‘sympathetic’ to the Communist cause were lumped together. After the 1978 raids a new category X was introduced (PELAK-002/KOPKAM/10/1968). In this instruction regulations were made for the use of prisoners for constructive labour, re-education and resettlement.

A number of Category A prisoners were tried, and many of them executed. Category B prisoners remained in detention without trial; many of the men were later shipped to Buru island (usually a figure of around 10.000 is given). Most Category C prisoners who survived the torture of their interrogations were gradually released. Their release solely depended on Kopkamtib’s decisions which had never been tested in court.

3. Enslavement

Many thousands of prisoners, most of them classified as category B, were transported from the overflowing prisons to concentration camps such as on the island of Buru in the Moluccas, Moncongloe and other places. Law no. 5 of 1969 on the authority to carry out detention and eradication of subversive activities became the founding law of the New Order government of President Suharto to deport political prisoners to Buru island. They became known as Tapol Tefaat (Tempat Pemanfaatan – Place of Utilization – later changed into Inrehab (Instalasi Rehabilitasi Buru). The manpower of the political prisoners was used for self-help and self-sufficiency in relation to working in the field of agriculture. They made roads, irrigation channels and reservoirs, cleared land, managed the rice fields, built and renovated barracks and homes, cut wood in the forest, built prayer houses, healthcare centers, art buildings, produced salt and sugar, performed corvee labour, ground shells into limestone, worked as blacksmiths, in workshops, and even attended to the daily needs of the employees of Tefaat Buru, work that was compulsory for the tapol (tahanan politik, political prisoners) of Buru.

Some 11.500 political prisoners were brought to the island of Buru. The prisoners also testified that 90% of the wives of the prisoners were ordered to sexually service both military and civilian men.

The Moncong Loe Camp in South Sulawesi was a concentration camp for prisoners from South Sulawesi, such as Makassar. Prisoners were made to engage in slave labour. There were 4 barracks for men and 1 barrack for women prisoners. The witnesses testified that they first built the camp itself, around 1970, including a mosque, a church and a polyclinic. They were also made to work in gardens and plantations for army personnel, the proceeds of which went into the pockets of the military men. They also built houses for their guards, as well as other buildings for the army. They were further forced to clear forests and build roads. Some of the women were forced to do domestic labour for the officers. The prisoners were not paid for their heavy labour and received very meagre rations. The camp existed from 1970 till 1978 and contained at least one thousand prisoners. None of the prisoners were ever given a warrant for their arrest or detention. They were never formally tried, but they were classified. A prisoner classified as C3 was released in 1974. A prisoner classified as B2 was only released in 1977.

4. Forced deportation and the prevention of a safe return to Indonesia

Since the second half of the 1950s and early 1960s agreements were made with the Soviet Union and China and the Communist Bloc to bring young Indonesians to these countries to further their knowledge in order to enhance their roles in the development of the Indonesian Republic when they came back. Ever since Sukarno’s visit to the Soviet Union in 1956 Indonesian civilians were encouraged to study in the Soviet Union with scholarships from Khrushchev’s government and by 1965 Indonesians were the largest foreign student population numbering around 2000. Similarly relations that Sukarno built with China in 1956 and the gradual orientation of the PKI to the Chinese Bloc, stimulated the wave of Indonesian youth to China. In 1965 the government sent delegations to a number of conferences held in these countries, among others to China to attend the Chinese National Day which falls on the 1st of October and also in Cuba.

However with the dramatic shifts in the political situation in 1965 and the elimination of the left-wing individuals/groups within the political landscape, apart from the disappearances and killings of Indonesians alleged to be Communists, Indonesians abroad were also screened and monitored and especially those in the socialist/communist countries.

In the period between 1965 – 1967 hundreds to thousands of individuals lost their Indonesian citizenship because they were allegedly considered to be Communists by the newly established regime of Suharto. With a stroke of the pen they became stateless because they were unwilling to deny that they were followers of Sukarno or they were considered to be Communists and lost all their rights and entitlements as citizens of the Republic of Indonesia and therefore excommunicated from their family members and friends in Indonesia.

Ever since the 1970s Indonesian Embassies such as that in the Soviet Union made a list of the students whose passports had been revoked with the aim to trace where they were and where they had moved to. These lists were also sent to Indonesian embassies in Western Europe because it was known that many had moved to Western Europe with the disintegration of many socialist countries and the political instability and tension which occurred. During the New Order period there was no contact at all between the OTP (Orang Terhalang Pulang or Those Prohibited from Returning).

5. Sexual violence

Sexual violence was pervasive during both the massacres of 1965-1966 and the mass political detentions that following the 1 October 1965 coup in Indonesia. This violence took many forms, including: rape, sexual violence as torture, sexual enslavement, and other forms of sexual violence (including sexual assault). These forms of sexual violence were perpetrated predominantly against women and older teenage girls; however, there were cases of these forms of sexual violence perpetrated against men, boys, and younger girls. There is also evidence of two further gender-based crimes against humanity, both sex-selective forms of violence against female victims: pregnancy as a result of rape, and forced abortion.

The crimes took place in a wide range of settings: in victims’ homes, in public, in prisons, police or military barracks, and in the many ad-hoc facilities used to hold people illegally detained following the 1965 coup. The time-frames for the crimes also vary considerably: from individual assaults, to repeated assaults over days and weeks, to conditions of sexual enslavement, enforced prostitution and forced marriage, lasting months or years.

Sexual crimes were frequently perpetrated at the same time as other forms of violence. The 2007 report by The Indonesian National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komisi Nasional Anti-Kekerasan terhadap Perempuan, or Komnas Perempuan), entitled ‘Gender-Based Crimes Against Humanity: Listening to the Voice of Women Survivors of 1965’ drew on 122 testimonies and found evidence of rape and sexual torture ascrimes against humanity, and of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity. With regard to rape and sexual torture as crimes against humanity, Komnas Perempuan found a pattern where the security forces were able to carry out sexual torture and rape against women from the moment they were arrested. There were no attempts from their superiors to prevent or punish the perpetrators of these crimes. These sexual crimes took place in the context of a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population. The perpetrators knew that their actions were part of this attack and felt certain that their actions would not be prevented or punished, rather that these acts would be supported

With regard to sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, Komnas Perempuan found evidence of instances where security forces treated women under their control as possessions that could be treated arbitrarily, including treating them as sexual commodities. These forms of sexual slavery occurred during detention and after release. There were no attempts by superiors to prevent or punish the perpetrators of such crimes. Sexual slavery took place in the context of a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population.

Armed civilian groups were also heavily involved in the torture of victims. In many cases victims were tortured by auxiliaries on the orders of the military or carried out together with the military.

The majority of acts of torture and ill-treatment were carried out during or after arrest or while in detention. Some victims were tortured and ill-treated outside of a place of detention including being assaulted in public, in their homes, in a field or on the journey to a place of detention.

The purpose of torture was to obtain information from the victim, to punish the victim, to threaten the victim, to humiliate the victim, to intimidate the victim or others sharing the victim’s political allegiance or to force a change in a victim’s loyalties.

Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment usually took place when detainees first arrived in a detention centre, or during interrogation. It was perpetrated in the cells, sometimes in front of other detainees, and sometimes in specific interrogation rooms. In the early years of the occupation the Indonesian military used some buildings specifically for the torture of prisoners.

Public torture and ill-treatment occurred frequently. Not only did it cause pain and humiliation to the victim, it was intended to terrorise those who witnessed it. Conversely much torture and ill-treatment was carried out in secret, away from the eyes of the victim’s loved ones or the eyes of the international community.

The following acts of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment were commonly used by the security forces:

•   Beating with fists or with implements such as a wooden club or a branch, an iron bar, a rifle butt, chains, a hammer, a belt, electric cables;
•   Kicking, usually while wearing military or police boots, including around the head and face; Punching and slapping;
•   Whipping;
•   Cutting with a knife;
•   Cutting with a razor blade

•   Placing the victim’s toes under the leg of a chair or table and then having one or more people sit on it;
•   Burning the victims flesh, including the victim’s genitalia with cigarettes or a gas lighter;
•   Applying electric shocks to different parts of the victim’s body, including the victim’s genitalia;
•   Firmly tying someone’s hands and feet or tying the victim and hanging him or her from a tree or roof;
•   Using water in various ways, including holding a person’s head under water; keeping a victim in a water tank for a prolonged period, sometimes up to three days; soaking and softening a victim’s skin in water before beating the victim; placing the victim in a drum filled with water and rolling it; pouring very hot or very cold water over the victim; pouring very dirty water or sewage over the victim;
•   Sexual harassment, sexual forms of torture and ill-treatment or rape while in detention. Women were the main victims of this kind of abuse;
•   Cutting off a victim’s ear to mark the victim;
•   Tying the victim behind a car and forcing him or her to run behind it or be draggedacross the ground;
•   Placing lizards with sharp teeth and claws in the water tank with the victim and engoading it to bite the softened skin on different parts of the victim’s body includingthe victim’s genitalia;
•   Pulling out of fingernails and toenails with pliers;
•   Running over a victim with a motor-bike;
•   Forcing a victim to drink a soldier’s urine or eat non-food items such as live smalllizards or a pair of socks;
•   Leaving the victim in the hot sun for extended periods;
•   Humiliating detainees in front of their communities, for example by making themstand or walk through the town naked;

•   Threatening the victim or the victim’s family with death or harming a member of thevictim’s family in front of them;There are other examples of forms of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment that were not widely reported but nevertheless confirm the general pattern of widespread and systematic physical abuse of detainees. These include:

•   Rubbing chillies in the victim’s eye;
•   Forcing the victim to sweep the floor with his or her body;
•   Forcing the victim to carry a decapitated head around the victim’s village;
•   Beating two male victims while their genitals were tied together;
•   Cutting off of the victim’s ear and forcing him to eat it;
•   Tying the victim inside a sack filled with snakes;
•   Dousing a group of prisoners with petrol and threatening to burn them alive.As well as physical abuse, detainees were also subject to mental and emotional torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Methods included:

•   Keeping prisoners in detention indefinitely without access to family and friends;
•   Keeping prisoners for extended periods in solitary confinement or in cells with nolight and little ventilation;
•   Taking a detainee to a place used for extra-judicial executions and pretending to thevictim that they were going to be killed, even to the point of firing a shot in thevictim’s direction;
•   Verbal abuse and insults;
•   Forcing victims to beat each other;
•   Torturing a family member in an adjoining room so that the victim could hear thescreaming, or torturing or threatening to torture a family member in front of thevictim;
•   Blindfolding or placing a black cloth, helmet or bucket over a victim’s head duringinterrogation and torture;
•   Using symbolism to humiliate and break the spirit of the victim such as forcing the victim to drink water in which an Indonesian flag had been soaked; Insulting a victim’s religion such as by tearing off the victim’s crucifix or tying the victim to a cross;

The propaganda campaign was carried out with the following means:

Radio

The mass media were totally controlled by Suharto and his troops and followers. On October 1 he occupied the radio station, and in the evening already declared that a coup had been conducted. Radio was the most effective means of reaching the population at the time. The national radio had a near monopoly. The few private stations that operated in the months after the ‘events of 1965’ were strictly controlled. Radio communication was also the central means of communication within the armed forces. Kostrad, the special troops led by General Suharto, had a large radio transmitter in its HQ. The US and other western allies immediately provided help in the form of telecommunication equipment, see charge 3.9, complicity of other states.

Print media

The day after the generals were killed Suharto closed down the independent press. Only army-controlled print media were allowed. It is these media that spread the slanderous stories around the PKI and Gerwani and the army version of who instigated the removal of the army top brass.

Speeches

The army version of the ‘event of 1965’ were also spread via public speeches. Roosa (2006). mentioned the hate propaganda spread by colonel Sarwo Edhie, inciting mass demonstrations of students to attack and destroy the PKI and its associated mass organizations.

As the several armed forces also included pro-PKI officers, propaganda was produced for internal army-use as well. They had to be purged and the wavering personnel had to be won over to the anti-PKI side. A guide was produced by General Ibnu who states that this text is intended as ‘troop information’, while the investigation was still ongoing (Pusat Penerangan 1965:5). In the 3rd part (dated as December 5) a list of 97 socalled ‘facts’ is incorporated that are supposed to prove that the PKI is the dalang of G 30 S. Amidst mention of various boxes of alat tjukil mata (tools to cut out eyes, in fact ordinary rubber knives) or weapons for the PR or Gerwani, several times Gerwani is accused of being involved in prostitution. In one of the last items on the list of perversities that the authors invented, they turn to the alleged role of Gerwani in ‘poisoning’ (both morally, and with the use of various powders) the nation’s children in the many kindergartens which Gerwani had set up all around the country (Pusat Penerangan 1965: 386).

Mass demonstrations

To create a climate of terror and instability mass demonstrations were organised. These mainly concerned student organizations, of the university students, KAMI (Kesatuan Aksi Mahasiswa Indonesia, Indonesian Students Action Front). Both Colonel Sarwo Edhie, commander of the RPKAD troops which would lead the campaign of massacres in Central and East Java and Bali, and the fiercely anti-communist Jesuit Father Beek were instrumental in organizing the students. Other Action Fronts were established as well, KAPPI (pemuda and pelajar, youth and high school students), KAPI (pelajar, high school students), KAWI (wanita, women), KASI (sarjana, scholars), KAPNI (penguasa nasional, national entrepreneurs), KATI (tani, farmers), KABI (buruh, labourers). All these action fronts were meant to counter and destroy the PKI and its associated mass organisations. Their demonstrations were violent, offices were burnt (sometimes with people in them) houses of leaders destroyed. They were short-lived, after a few months they had fulfilled their task, which was summarized in the socalled Tritura formula (Tri Tuntutan Rakyat, three demands of the people), namely 1) to dissolve the PKI, 2) to reduce the prices, and 3) to dissolve the Dwikora cabinet. Prices remained high though, but the PKI was destroyed. Participation in them was expected, if not obligatory.

Another effective means of instigating terror and of convincing the people of the atrocities alleged to have been committed in Lubang Buaya was the theatre staged on top of a truck, which was touring Jakarta. Actors played scenes of torture and sexual violence allegedly committed by members of Gerwani.

Museum, diorama’s, monuments

Hate propaganda, based on lies and slander and misinformation started in the days after the murder of the generals, but continued throughout the reign of Suharto, until his fall in 1998. The people had to be kept in a continued state of terror, not being allowed to question the ORBA version of events and its justification of its continued repression and stigmatization of the victims, their families and survivors. To that end a museum (Musium Pancasila Sakti, of the holy pancasila) was set up and a huge monument on the site erected. In the museum diorama’s are displayed in which the PKI was portrayed as always already evil and betraying the nation. The monument displayed the proud masculine statues of the generals, and a bas relief with the history of Indonesia after 1945 according to Suharto, in which the atrocities allegedly committed by Gerwani took centre stage. The museum also contains the uniforms of the slain generals where the blood of various bullet wounds is clearly visible, but in which no signs of the alleged castrations is to be seen.

Films and other cultural products

Based on the version of events as written by Nugroho Notosutanto of the army history department, a film was produced by Arifin Noor, entitled the Betrayal of G30S/GESTAPU. The generals are portrayed as heroes, and General Suharto as the saviour of the nation. The PKI is the villain, and the scenes at Lubang Buaya feature seductively dancing girls, singing the song gendjer gendjer in a perverted version. A novel based on the film was written by Arswendo Atmowiloto. In various other cultural products, such as novels, the theme of the alleged barbarity of the PKI is repeated.

Other effects

The effects of this hate propaganda included not only the incitement to genocide and the justification and perpetuation of the persecution of the survivors and family members of victims and survivors. It also had deep psychological effects on the perpetrators.

The New Order government kept propagating that the victims were bad and dangerous, while the killers knew that they were good people. This has led to cognitive dissonance among the perpetrators. They don’t believe their own judgements any more.

8. Enforced disappearances

Most killings took place in the form of enforced disappearances, these took place all over the country.

In North Sumatera, in the plantations the following cases were noted. Beginning in mid- October 1965, all leaders and secretaries of branch and sub-branch organisations (PKI, BTI, the People’s Youth Organisation and the labour union Sarbupri) in the sub-districts and villages situated in plantations were arrested by the Buterpra (Bintara Urusan Teritorial Pertahanan Rakyat) and members of Komando Aksi. They were taken to the military Buterpra office, or the TPS (Tempat Penahanan Sementara, a temporary holding place) as well as to the Koramil/Kodim (Local Military Command). There were several groups of arrests: first five, then 13, 14, 44, etc. Those arrested had often been involved in demonstrations in the plantations and bargaining with management; they were also members of the Peoples Youth, Pemuda Rakyat, who had led the action to clean the villages.

At the district or provincial level leaders of Sarbupri, the PKI and other organisations were usually arrested by the military and Buterpra members. Usually victims were arrested at 5pm. The Komando Aksi backed by soldiers from the local Buterpra command came to the home of the victim or where he was hiding. Victims had to assemble on the field of the plantation. Buterpra transported the victims but the executions were carried out by the Komando Aksi.

Forced disappearances on the Island of Kemarau:

According to the testimony of a witness, on 27 October 1965, the witness along with members of his organisation were summoned by the police in Bangka at Pinang-Bangka base. From then on they were detained until August 1978. After being questioned by the police they were transferred to a prison of the CPM (Military Police Corps). The witness himself was detained for six months, after which he was transferred to the island of Kemarau in Palembang. It was only after they arrived there that he realised where they were. Then, along with other prisoners, altogether 112 people, including the witness and his wife, they were all loaded onto an open truck. After getting on the truck it was closed, the people were covered by a sheet of tarpaulin which was not held up by any poles. According to the testimony of the witnesses, it was estimated that about 30,000 people in South Sumatera disappeared, without any legal process.

Some were lost or died after having been tortured or being dragged behind vehicles or from not having been given food in prison. They were then thrown into the river, including those thrown into the River Musi from the Kemarau Island place of detention.

NTT – KUPANG

One example of enforced disappearance is that of the case of Markus Berek who was an elementary school teacher. He was taken away from his home by military personnel. His wife, Maria Salan, was at that time pregnant and later on gave birth to a daughter, named Anna Ulu. Markus Berek never returned after his arrest.

PALU

Other than forced labor, some of the former detainees testified eight people died of torture, and four people disappeared (Kompas, 24 Maret 2011). The victims of enforced disappearance were leading figures of PKI’s Regional Committee (CBD). They are Abdul Rahman Daeng Maselo, the first secretary and periodical Chair of Front Nasional (National Front); Hairi Ruswanto, the second secretary and member of Central Sulawesi parliament; Sunaryo and Zamrud, both were CBD officials as well. Maryam Labonu, Maselo’s wife who was also detained for a year with her three children, is still looking for the whereabouts of her husband. In 2000, another victim who was detained with her husband said that he saw human bones and remains in Korem army post, Palu (Antara News, 27 December 2012).

JAVA

Boyolali

Arrests of those who supported the left in north Boyolali occurred from November 1965 to March 1966. Most of the arrests were aimed at individuals and were conducted one by one. Most of them were arrested in their homes, or in their workplaces. But there are also some cases where victims were taken away while they were on the streets. The time of arrest was arbitrary. The reason used to arrest usually was ‘the person was requested to come along because they were needed by the government’ or ‘they were asked to give information’. According to the report those who were taken away and disappeared were : 5 village heads, 4 bayan (village scribes), 1 head of Pemuda Rakyat/BTI, 5 teachers, 4 DPU officials, 2 market coolies and 1 agricultural personnel.

The people who took them away were: village officials, two to four paramilitary together with military personnel from the Yon E section and the local police who were acted only as guards and would not enter the homes of the victims. Interrogation was done by the military.

The military usually would eliminate traces of the victim and would not inform family members. These family members would only know through word of mouth.

Between 24/25 December 1965 until 24/25 January 1966 – enforced disappearances occurred frequently from the various detention camps in Boyolali. The number of detentions is unclear. One informant says: around 380 people, another said 17 truckloads. And according to Samino, from his camp only, around 80 people were taken away in two trucks.

The mode of enforced disappearances were:

1. From the prisons

•   A number of prisoners were summoned
•   They were then asked to get their clothes ready because they would be ‘returnedhome’ (dipulangkan)
•   They were then put in the trucks and never seen again.2. Those who had already been released from prison:On the 8th of November 1965 Wakimin, the brother of a local official, who was a public works staff and active in Lekra and Pemuda Rakyat; and Sukiman, a farmer who was also member of the Pemuda Rakyat, were taken in a military truck, and brought to the regional police office of Boyolali which was full of RPKAD troops and then taken to the SGB detention camp. They were then released and allowed to return home. But the acting village head and the police refused their return, and they were taken away again. And then they were never seen again. BlitarAccording to the testimony of Andhika, her husband, Bandi, head of the parliament (DPR- GR) was attending a meeting of the National Front in Jakarta. Her husband managed to put his bag at home but then went away again. When military-led Trisula Operation occurred in Blitar she left the house with her youngest child and her six other children were brought to her grandmother’s house. In 1966 she still managed to see her husband but then they separated again and she joined those who were part of the resistance movement in the south of Blitar. She was arrested 11 August 1968, by Battalion 511, then she was moved from one detention camp to another. While she was in the LP Blitar she was summoned by the KODIM of Blitar and told that her husband had been shot.

The United States viewed the wholesale annihilation of the PKI and its civilian backers as an indispensable prerequisite to Indonesia’s reintegration into the regional political economy, the ascendance of a military modernizing regime and the crippling or overthrow of Sukarno. Washington did everything in its power to encourage and facilitate the Army-led massacre of alleged PKI members, and U.S. officials worried only that the killing of the party’s unarmed supporters might not go far enough, permitting Sukarno to return to power and frustrate the Administration’s emerging plans for a post-Sukarno Indonesia. Declassification of just a fraction of the CIA’s records demonstrates its covert operations in Indonesia were more widespread and insidious than previously acknowledged. These records also reveal the Johnson Administration to have been a direct and willing accomplice to one of the great bloodbaths of twentieth century history

The U.S. role can be broken down into three parts: covert operations prior to September 30, 1965; U.S. knowledge of and involvement in GS30 itself; and U.S. direct and indirect support for the mass killings that followed. The U.S. government from August, 1964 through September, 1965 sought to provoke an armed clash between the Indonesian Armed Forces and the Indonesian Communist Party, which it hoped would lead to the latter’s annihilation. While the U.S. government had no direct role in or knowledge of GS30 itself, it immediately sought to take advantage of the events to urge the Indonesian army to destroy the PKI. Over the ensuing five months, the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson engaged in covert operations to provide limited but significant support to those carrying out the mass killings, was aware of the scope and scale of the killings as they were occurring, and sent numerous signals of support to Indonesian Army officials, as did other Western governments.

U.S., British and Australian officials were certainly aware by early 1966 that hundreds of thousands had been killed. In mid-January, Armed Forces Liaison Colonel Stamboul told British military attaches attending a briefing at Army headquarters that half a million people had been killed. Australian officials claimed to have an Indonesian police report putting the death toll “in Bali alone at 28,000.’ Ambassador Gilchrist told Marshall Green a month later he thought the total toll closer to 400,000, a figure the Swedish Ambassador found ‘quite incredible’ and a serious underestimate based on his recent travels in the countryside. Walt Rostow cited even lower figures of 300,000 dead in briefings for President Johnson. Journalist Stanley Karnow, after a tour of Central and East Java and Bali, told Political Consul Edward Masters that press estimates based on Western diplomatic sources were ‘way too low’ and that he thought 400,000 a minimum figure. Appropriately, Masters had just met with an assistant to Adam Malik – who also thought U.S.-cited figures of 300,000 far too conservative – to discuss ‘the desirability of downplaying the extent of the carnage,’ remarking that “we believe it wiser to err on the side of lower estimates, especially when questioned by the press.”

Thus US, British and Australian governments knew a mass killing was underway and they made no attempt to stop this. To the contrary, they assisted the army by providing small weapons, mass communications and other forms of aid.

ANNEX 6: Closing statement prosecution

13 November 2015

Silke Studzinsky

Your Honors,
Dear colleagues, friends and participants,

After four days of extremely intense hearings, we want to express our deepest thanks, appreciation and admiration for the survivors and witnesses who had the courage to speak in public about the events in 1965- 66 and the following years. This is the first time that survivors of the 1965 events have had the opportunity to speak out. This International People’s Tribunal was set up to render some form of justice not only to them but also to all survivors and victims of the atrocities.

Survivors and witnesses have talked about their sufferings, the brutal crimes they were exposed to, and the harm, discrimination and stigmatization that they face until today. The survivors dared to speak about the unspeakable. They are brave and strong. They have shown that, even after more than 50 years, the crimes and the consequences are present as if they occurred yesterday.

They testified for themselves and for their families, but also for all survivors who could not appear before this tribunal. Their testimony has been broadcasted and preserved, and everybody in Indonesia and worldwide can, and must, listen to their voices.

Although the homepage of the tribunal seems to be inaccessible in Indonesia—maybe blocked—means have been found to circumvent this attack against the International People’s Tribunal. This is another attempt to silence the voices of the victims.

The testimonies shed light on the 1965 events and, by doing this, they change history as it is written and taught in Indonesia until today. Those who testified got some relief, although the scars and sufferings remain.

We would also like to extend great thanks to the experts who testified before the tribunal, and who provided very valuable background information and explanations about what happened back then. However, archives are not yet fully opened and a lot still needs to be done to clear up the full scale of crimes that were committed.

We also want to thank all who supported and contributed in so many ways to the setting up of the International People’s Tribunal and made it possible for the hearings to take place.

Finally, yet importantly, we want to acknowledge the testimony of the commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission, Komnas HAM, Dr Dianto Bachriadi. He demonstrated great courage to appear before the tribunal in an unofficial capacity. He reported on the difficulties of getting the recommendations of the report of the Komhas HAM implemented. The Commission spent four years investigating the crimes against humanity, committed during the events of 1965.

He confirmed that the Komnas HAM findings are very similar to the counts 1-7 of the indictment that the prosecution submitted to this tribunal. There is enough evidence to open an investigation. Dr Dianto Bachriadi insisted that the truth must be revealed and properly established as a starting point for reconciliation. In other words, no reconciliation without truth.

Ms Mariana Amiruddin, the commissioner of the Komnas Perempuan, the National Commission on Violence Again Women, also appeared before the tribunal. She attended the hearings and testified in her official capacity. Ms Amiruddin confirmed that the Komnas Perempuan report, which documents sexual and gender-based violence committed during the 1965 events, describes cases and patterns of sexual and gender-based violence that are similar to those submitted by the prosecution in its indictment.

We would like to thank both commissioners for their important contributions through their testimonies and through the reports that they have produced, all based on testimonies of victims.

It is unfortunate that the government of Indonesia has not yet implemented the recommendations of both reports.

I would also like to mention the difficult circumstances which the hearings of the International People’s Tribunal faced. After more than 50 years, the government of Indonesia is still reluctant to acknowledge the facts and the crimes that were committed. It was not possible to hold the hearing in Indonesia, and the government continues to suppress actively the truth about the 1965 events. That is more than regrettable. Nevertheless, it is a great success that the hearings here in The Hague have taken place, and that many violations and crimes could be brought before the bench of judges, who will assess the evidence.

As a German citizen, who lives every day with the knowledge of my country’s recent criminal and bloody past, and as an international lawyer and prosecutor before the International People’s Tribunal, I would like to begin by quoting from the closing statement of the British lead prosecutor, Hartley Shawcross, in the Nuremberg trials:

Law triumphs over evil. The proceedings were not guided for the sake of revenge but by the strong resolution that such heinous crimes never ever occur again.

This well-intentioned hope expressed by the lead prosecutor, in a world still suffering under the shock of the Second World War, has been frustrated. History has proved that wars and attacks against the civilian population have continued in many regions of the world.

In Indonesia, in the middle of the Cold War and only 20 years after the Nuremberg trials, the Indonesian government, through the military and the police in concert with certain social and religious organizations, committed mass crimes. They were directed against alleged members of the PKI, the Communist Party of Indonesia, and its allegedly affiliated sympathizers. The specific intent was to eliminate them as a national group within Indonesian society.

During the four days of hearings, we heard of mass killings, enslavement, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearances, persecution through propaganda and complicity of foreign countries, in particular by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia.

The international community was aware of the mass crimes but remained silent.

The survivors still live with detailed knowledge of what their daily existence was like in those years. They live with the horrible torture and ill-treatment perpetrated against them every single day and night. I dedicate to them the following lines by Jean Améry, a survivor of the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz. I quote: Anyone who has been tortured remains tortured. Anyone who has suffered torture will never again be at ease in the world. The abomination of annihilation is never extinguished.

The survivors have to deal on a daily basis with their memories. They want to be recognized as victims of horrible crimes and they wanted to give evidence of the incomprehensible inhumane treatment that deprived them of their dignity as human beings.

They ask the question, ‘Why was I selected to be imprisoned, tortured, enslaved? I was not guilty of anything.’

The families want to know what has actually happened to their loved ones. Which torture methods were they subjected to? Were they interrogated and by whom? Did they leave any hidden message for us? Did they call out for help? How and where were they killed and by whom? Were they raped and sexually assaulted? Where were they disappeared to? Why were they selected to be dehumanized?

Both of them, the survivors and their families are seeking justice. But what does this justice mean for them? For both of them justice means, among other things, finding the truth and getting answers to their excruciating and relentless questions which haunt them at night and deprive them of necessary sleep.

When they do sleep it is often inadequate. There is permanent restlessness in their souls, and the events prey on their minds. They are permanently deprived of a peaceful life to this very day. In Indonesia, they are discriminated against, stigmatized and silenced until today. They demand to know the entire historical truth of what happened to their beloved ones, who are only ghost-like visions as long as no detailed information about their fate is available. Learning this information is the only way to re-establish the dignity of their beloved ones. Learning this information is the only way to release the living from these horrors, so they are able to live their own lives free of unanswered questions and visions from the past.

The prosecution believes that we have been able to present strong evidence during the four- day hearings. We believe this evidence convincingly proves the crimes against humanity, as we have listed them in the indictment, and demonstrates the responsibility of the State of Indonesia for these crimes. The evidence presented also confirms that the governments of the United States, The United Kingdom and Australia are responsible for complicity, by offering significant and conscious support to the Indonesian government in its commission of crimes against humanity.

However, there may be more foreign governments involved. Many archives are still closed. By actively disclosing the evidence, foreign states could contribute to the legitimate search for the truth.

The prosecution incorporates by reference the prosecution’s brief, outlining the legal framework under international law as applicable to crimes against humanity as charged in the indictment.

The indictment does not and cannot cover all crimes that were committed. Part of the attack against the civilian population was the eviction of people from their land. Entire villages were emptied and people forcibly transferred. Their property was confiscated, and they lost the basis for making their living. Until today, the government does not recognize their losses and does not compensate them.

The prosecution acknowledges the commission of these crimes. However, they could not be included into the indictment before the International People’s Tribunal. Further investigation of these crimes is urgently needed.

State Responsibility Under International Law:

1. 1  Pursuant to the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 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. 2  A State is responsible for the commission of serious crimes, such as crimes against humanity, if it facilitates, aids, abets, supports and commits such crimes under their responsibility and through state actors.
3. 3  The acts were committed under the full responsibility of the State. General Suharto immediately assumed de facto control of the capital and the armed forces on 2 October 1965. 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 1965, General Suharto was appointed as the Chief Commander of the Kopkamtib. Consequently, this Command operated under the direct orders of General Suharto.
4. 4  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 President of the State of Indonesia.
5. 5  General Suharto and his associates immediately blamed the PKI as the masterminds of the 30th September Movement, G30S. A military propaganda campaign distributed pictures of the dead generals with claims that Communists, particularly Communist women, had tortured and mutilated them before death. As a result, violence and demonstrations by the army and various youth groups—equipped and supported by the military and the government—began targeting suspected Communists 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.
6. 6 On 21 December 1965, General Suharto issued an order (KEPI/KOPKAM/12/1965) for military leaders around Indonesia to compile lists of members of the PKI and PKI- affiliated organizations 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.

During the hearing, the prosecution explained in detail the chain of command, which demonstrates that the military and military police who committed the crimes, acted on the orders of the Indonesian state and in concert with civilian and religious groups and militias, who were instrumentalized and used for the commission of the crimes.

Now, I want to move on to detail the different counts and discuss the evidence that we presented during the four days—evidence which we submitted to Your Honours— researchers’ reports, the testimonies of witnesses and experts, and other material evidence.

All nine counts are committed as underlying offences of crimes against humanity. Immediately after the events of the 30 September, a widespread and systematic attack was committed against a significant part of the civilian population. The target groups were members of the PKI, members of its affiliated groups and organizations, and anybody who was perceived as a supporter or sympathizer of the PKI.

In particular, state authorities committed the following offences as part of the attack against the civilian population:

Count 1 Murder

The prosecution presented the statement of Mr Martono, a survivor of the 1965 events. For 2 years, he was detained by the military. During detention he was tortured and was forced by the OPSUS (a special team consisting of members from the military, air force, mobile brigade and political parties) to dispose of corpses of those killed during massacres in the Bengawan River, in Solo, Central Java. He picked up the bodies at the Diponegoro detention centre where detainees were electrocuted. Mr Martono estimates that he disposed of two bodies daily, and up to 20 bodies during weekends.

We heard the expert witnesses Mr Ferry Putra, an independent journalist, Ms Misty (pseudonym) and Ms Dwyer who could establish that mass murder took place immediately after 1st of October 1965 and lasted until 1967. The experts gave an overview of mass killings that took place in all areas of Indonesia and in a widespread and systematic manner.

In 1999, Ms Dwyer collected testimonies from witnesses who knew the locations of mass graves in Bali. Between 80,000 and 120,000 people were killed in Bali in the period December 1965 until March 1966. This was 5.8% of the total population at that time. Some of these mass graves contain the remains of 200 victims, among which are members of the PKI and the affiliated Indonesian Farmers Union, BTI; but also people with no political ties, such as children of the ages of 11 and 12 years. In Bali alone, at least 100 mass graves have been identified. In Bali, the killings started in December 1965, after the arrival of the Special Forces. These Special Forces conducted the killings, together with other military personnel, locals, PNI members and associated militias, and Ansor militias from Java. The military and local police also ordered civilians to take part in the killings in neighbouring villages, and threatened to kill their families if they refused to cooperate.

We heard about one example of the excavation of a mass grave. Based on the position of the human remains in the mass grave, forensic experts concluded that the victims stood in one line before they were shot dead, and the shooting was carried out in a short period of time.

According to the expert witnesses, and from the data they collected, the different sections of the military and military police of the State of Indonesia were the perpetrators of the murders, also in concert with civilians, used and instrumentalized by the army.

Research shows that priests were also asked to be part of execution teams or to escort victims to the places of execution.

The military command directed the killings and solicited local militias.

The prosecution concludes that evidence proves that widespread and systematic killings took place, as described in the indictment under the count of murder, and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 2 Enslavement

The evidence presented through the testimony of a survivor who testified under protection measures, and the expert witness, Mr Asvi Warman Adam, shows that during the 1965 events, widespread and systematic enslavement took place. The survivor described quite clearly that arrests experienced by the victim were carried out by the District Military Command, while the transfer of the prisoners to other prisons was carried out by the police and the military (the CPM Unit). The survivor belonged to an ethnic Chinese student organization which was not related to the PKI. When arrested he was stripped naked. After several transfers, he was brought to Buru Island where he was subjected to forced labour. In total, he was detained for 14 years. The military who detained him did not give any reasons for the detention. No arrest warrant was issued. He was under the control of military guards. He did not receive any remuneration for his forced labour. After his release, he was required to report once a month and later in Jakarta he had to report once every three months. Further, he had to follow indoctrination classes on Pancasila—the ideological basis of the State of Indonesia. Before prisoners were released, they had to sign a statement in which they confirmed that they were not treated badly. They also had to choose a religion.

The expert witnesses described the detention system, with a specific focus on Buru Island.

He concluded that the crimes against those accused of being Communists followed an order of General Suharto. General Suharto gave a speech in which he said that the Communist party should be destroyed at its roots. Various military units interpreted the order in different ways, carrying out arrests, detaining and also killing people. In succeeding years, those who criticized the government were branded as Communists, and the danger of communism was deliberately kept alive in order to control the people.

The conditions in the prison cells was very poor—prisoners were tortured, food was restricted and health services not available. Initially prisoners did not have access to families, only at the end of their prison time.

Prisoners were categorized into three groups: Those in Group A were considered to be involved in the murder of the generals and tried in courts or in military tribunals; Group B consisted of those members of the PKI who were involved, but they were not top-ranking officials; and Group C consisted of those allegedly sympathizers of the PKI.

Many who were arrested after October 1965 were transferred from one prison to another, often ending in the concentration camp of Buru Island. The military and military police carried out the detentions, during which enslavement took place. The expert explained the chain of command and demonstrated that the commander of Kopkamtib decided on all matters. Thus, the State of Indonesia bears the ultimate responsibility for the enslavement of the prisoners.

On Buru Island, at least 11,000 people were enslaved. The purpose of removal to Buru Island was: to ensure other people were not influenced by Communist ideology; to isolate Communists; and to ensure people followed Pancasila. Initially the government justified the detention on Buru Island to ensure the elections of 1971were not disturbed. However, the prisoners were not released after the elections.

In 1978 and 1979, the detainees were finally released, due to pressure from international governments and donor organizations.

Women were imprisoned in Plantungan prison. In addition to similarly poor conditions, female prisoners were subjected to sexual violence. If they became pregnant and gave birth, family members brought up the child because there was nobody to take care of them.

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that widespread and systematic enslavement as part of the attack against the civilian population took place, as described in the indictment under the count of enslavement and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 3 Imprisonment

The prosecution presented two witnesses and survivors Mr Bejo Untung and Mr Martono. In addition, Ms Saskia Wieringa testified as an expert witness. Mr Untung was a member of an independent, cultural students’ association, which the military characterized as affiliated with the PKI. When he was arrested by the 5th army military command in Jakarta, he was stripped naked and tortured through electrocution. He could hear other victims who screamed while obviously being tortured as well. An arrest warrant did not exist, and reasons for the detention were never given. The deprivation of liberty was arbitrary and without legal basis. He was never brought before an independent and impartial court. He was also held in prison under poor conditions without access to sufficient food and health care. The prisons were overcrowded. Prisoners had no access to a lawyer, and their families and relatives did not visit them. Today Mr Untung chairs a victims’ association and has collected 200 statements of survivors who were imprisoned.

Likewise, Mr Mortono was held in detention without any legal basis and due process. He was also tortured and electrocuted and subjected to interrogations.

Ms Wieringa explained that psychological testing was used in 1966 and again in the 1970s to identify prisoners who were staunchly Communist. In 1966, after those who were deemed sympathizers of the PKI in the military and bureaucracy had been purged, all other prisoners were tested; in the early 1970s more elaborate tests were developed, which were deployed for instance for prisoners on Buru Island; and at the end of the 1970s, further tests were conducted to determine who could be liberated. Those deemed still committed to Communist ideology were released much later. A major aim of the psychological testing was to give credibility to the purges of Kopkamtib and make them appear normal.

On 1 November 1965, General Nasution decided that prisoners should be categorized. Ms Wieringa also described this categorization. Psychologists, in close cooperation with Dutch universities, developed tests which were used to identify who might be a Communist and their degree of commitment. They categorized the prisoners, after conducting the tests; thus, taking the role of judges, without legal process.

The prosecution concludes that evidence proves that widespread and systematic imprisonment took place, as described in the indictment under count 3, and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 4 Torture

The prosecution presented the testimonies of the survivors Mr Muhammad Yusuf Pakasi and Mr Martin Aleida.

Mr Pakasi was a civil servant. He was arrested and subsequently tortured during interrogation. He was asked to provide names. He named those whom he knew, but the torture continued. The torture was so severe that he became unconscious.

Mr Aleida was a journalist and worked for a PKI affiliated newspaper. He was arrested and also tortured. He described various forms of torture, which were used during interrogation. He was detained for 1 year. He also reported about others who were tortured.

The prosecution concludes that evidence proves that widespread and systematic torture was committed, as described in the indictment under count 4 and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 5 Sexual Violence

The prosecution presented for this count the testimony of one survivor of sexual violence, who testified under protection measures, and Ms Wieringa as expert witness. The survivor described that she was stripped naked while arrested and interrogated. The military searched for a mark on her body that would show that she was a member of the Communist-affiliated women’s organization, Gerwani. Her genitals were burned and she was heavily tortured and raped during detention. She was also forced to engage in oral sex. Eventually, she was physically and psychologically destroyed. Until today, she is still suffering as a result of these sexual attacks against her. She is still wondering why these crimes were committed against her, and until today has had no answers.

Ms Wieringa presented an overview about the patterns of sexual violence committed, mainly against women. Ms Wieringa has conducted extensive research and interviewed survivors who then met in groups for discussion. However, it was only after 1998 that survivors dared to speak in such groups. She also presented the findings of other researchers in this field. According to the expert witness, sexual violence was widespread and systematically committed. All forms can be found: vaginal and oral rape—mostly during interrogation and detention, being stripped naked and sexually assaulted, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, mutilation of sexual organs, enforced pregnancy.

All women faced the sexual attacks under coercive circumstances.

The perpetrators, military and militiamen, often acted in groups. They enjoyed impunity. Superiors were often involved and present. Nevertheless, these crimes were neither prevented nor punished.

Shame and stigmatization continue until today.

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that widespread and systematic sexual violence was committed, as described in the indictment under count 5 and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 6 Persecution

Under the count of persecution, the prosecution presented the statements of Mr Surono and Ms Aminah whose Indonesian nationalities were revoked. They were abroad between 1965- 1967, in the Soviet Union and in Bulgaria respectively. They were deprived of their right to return safely to Indonesia.

Like these two survivors, most Indonesians abroad were students, government officials, journalists or others who were studying and working abroad in an official capacity. Indonesian embassies throughout the world actively screened Indonesian citizens. The embassies characterized this as a dialogue with its citizens. The screening teams systematically invited all Indonesians into the embassy and interviewed them about their attitudes towards Sukarno. If they did not follow the invitation and/or if they were identified as supporters of Sukarno, or considered to be Communists and not loyal to Suharto, their passports were revoked and they could not return to Indonesia. They were outlawed and eventually became stateless for decades. They felt like dust and ‘nothing.’ Until today, they do not feel secure and many still do not dare to return to Indonesia.

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that widespread and systematic persecution on political grounds was committed as described in the indictment under count 6 and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 7 Enforced Disappearance

The prosecution presented two witnesses. The first was Mr Astaman Hasibuan, whose father disappeared.

Mr Hasibuan’s parents were members of a local branch of the PKI. His father was arrested, but eventually Mr Hasibuan could find no information about the whereabouts of his father— whether he was dead, and if so where he died and was buried. He has searched for witnesses, but after 10th December 1965 he lost all traces of his father.

The witness confirmed that in many cases people were arrested, transferred to different places, and then disappeared. Mostly at night, they were taken from their places of detention and never returned.

Their families have never received information about their whereabouts. The prosecution submits that the count of disappearance as crime against humanity is established.

The second witness, Ms Intan, told the story of her brother, father and her mother who were arrested by the military. They were accused of being members of the Communist Party. Her father disappeared from prison. She has searched everywhere, until today, but does not know what happened to him. In total, seven members of her family disappeared. She suffers severely until today. She feels helpless and is haunted by her memories.

Not-knowing haunts the victims who lost their family members. They ask the same questions: Where are our fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers? Our aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews? Where can I mourn and bury them?

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that widespread and systematic disappearances took place and as described in the indictment under count 7 and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 8 Persecution through propaganda

The prosecution presented the testimony of the expert witnesses, Ms Wieringa and Mr Herlambang, who explained the use and functioning of propaganda that incited and eventually led to the commission of severe crimes.

Ms Wieringa explained the historical background first.

She described how the PKI was branded as atheists, and thus anti-Pancasila and against the nation. Since everybody in Indonesia had to have a religion, to be accused of being an atheist without sexual morals fell on fertile ground. This stigma continues until today.

Immediately after the 30 September coup, the military established the above narrative through a book written by a military historian, Nugroho Notosusanto, which was published in December 1965. Newspapers were banned and only army-owned newspapers were allowed.

The military spread the false story that girls from Gerwani seduced the generals and castrated them while dancing naked. The PKI was accused of having trained the girls. Although the results of autopsies of the generals showed that this was untrue, this idea is still commonly accepted in Indonesia today.

The anti-PKI campaign was spread via various means and instruments, including movies, the school curriculum, books, ceremonies and monuments. The radio was the most effective means used.

Expert analysis also confirmed that the hate propaganda led to acts of discrimination, marginalization, humiliation and dehumanization of the PKI, and in particular Gerwani and those affiliated with them.

The Propaganda created cultural fear.

Ms Wieringa concluded that the military was conscious of the powerful effects that the propaganda campaign, full of lies, could and would have.

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that widespread and systematic persecution through propaganda took place, as described in the indictment under count 8 and that the State of Indonesia is responsible for the commission of these crimes.

Count 9 Complicity by the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia

The prosecution presented two expert witnesses, Mr Simpson and Mr Herlambang. They described the involvement of the US, UK and Australia and the support these states gave to the State of Indonesia.

Mr Simpson could establish that the US government conducted covert operations before the killing of the generals on the 30th September and sought to take advantage of the events to urge the Indonesian army to destroy the PKI. The US, UK and Australia provided radio- communication equipment in order to facilitate communication between the troops and delivered small arms and money. They supported Indonesia in the commission of the mass crimes. They also provided lists of alleged PKI members to the Indonesian authorities.

Mr Herlambang explored another area—the cultural influence of the CIA, which manipulated Indonesian intellectuals to uphold anti-communist opinions.

The prosecution concludes that the evidence proves that the US, UK and Australia are accomplices in the commission of the crimes of murder, enslavement, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution and forced disappearance as crimes against humanity.

After four days of hearings, I want to revisit the question of my colleague and chief- prosecutor who asked in the prosecution’s opening statement the question: Why are we here?

We conclude that we made an important and enormous step forward on the long journey in the search for the truth, which has been silenced for so many decades.

And we take the next big step of calling on Indonesia to acknowledge and recognize the report of the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) of 2012, to follow its recommendations and to start immediately proper investigations into the large- scale crimes that were committed.

We truly believe that the International People’s Tribunal will open the door for a genuine acknowledgement of the crimes committed by the Indonesian government and individual perpetrators;

We truly believe that it will open the door for sincere apologies; for reparations and for rehabilitation of those who are discriminated until today.

The Tribunal will also significantly contribute to the long and continuing fight against impunity.

The survivors call upon the international community to acknowledge their complicity, to break the silence and put the historical record right.

This tribunal is also indispensable in reminding everyone that such crimes must never occur again.

I thank you for your attention.

ANNEX 7: Concluding Statement of the Judges of the International People’s Tribunal on the 1965crimes against humanity in Indonesia At The Close of Evidence on 13 November 2015

The judges of this Tribunal were appointed by the Foundation of the International People’s Tribunal on the 1965crimes against humanity in Indonesia to evaluate the upheaval and violence that plagued Indonesia during and after September-October 1965, to determine whether these events amounted to crimes against humanity, to express a conclusion on whether the state of Indonesia and/or any other state should assume responsibility for these crimes and to recommend what may be done in the interests of lasting and just peace and social progress in Indonesia.

The judges regret that neither the government of Indonesia, nor any other state to whom notice was given have made any submissions before this Tribunal despite having been invited.

This Statement is made on the 13th day of November 2015, at the end of the hearing of oral testimony of the victims, and of expert witnesses, over four days, having taken into account the broad historical background, much research material, writing and opinion and, in particular:

1. the 23 July 2012 Statement by Komnas HAM (National Commission for Human Rights) on the Results of its Investigations into Grave Violations of
   Human Rights During the Events of 1965-1966;
2. the 2007 report Gender-Based crimes against humanity : Listening to the Voices of Women Survivors of 1965 by Komnas Perempuan (Indonesian
   Commission for Violence against Women); and
3. the Concluding Observations of the UN Human Rights Committee in 2013 raising concerns about human rights violations in Indonesia in 1965 and after, the reiteration of those concerns in 2015, as well as the concerns expressed in 2012 by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

The broad historical background includes material concerning the government in Indonesia before the events of 1965, accounts of these events and their impact, the years of the Suharto dictatorship until about the turn of the century, the new reformist constitutional era ushered in after the round rejection of the Suharto regime as well as events after that.

The judges have had particular regard to the fact that there is no credible material disputing the occurrence of these grave violations of human rights, the passage in Indonesia of truth and reconciliation legislation in an effort to come to terms with the fact that these events had indeed occurred, the absence of any denial by any government of Indonesia that these events had occurred and the promise made by the President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, to ensure that these violations will be redressed. All the material demonstrates beyond any doubt that the serious violations of human rights brought to the judges’ attention did occur.

The judges consider that allegations by the prosecution of cruel and unspeakable murders and mass murders of over tens of thousands of people, of unjustifiable imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people without trial and for unduly long periods in crowded conditions, and the subjection of many of the people in prison to inhumane and ruthless torture and to forced labour that might well have amounted to enslavement, are well founded. It has also been demonstrated that sexual violence, particularly against women, was systematic and routine, especially during the period 1965-1967, that many political opponents were persecuted and exiled, and that many thousands of people who, according to propagandist and hate discourse, were thought not to support the Suharto dictatorship with sufficient fervour, disappeared. All of this was justified and encouraged by propaganda aimed at establishing the false proposition that those opposed to the military regime were by definition grossly immoral and unspeakably depraved.

It has been established that the State of Indonesia during the relevant period through its military and police arms committed and encouraged the commission of these grave human rights violations on a systematic and widespread basis. The judges are also convinced that all this was done for political purposes: to annihilate the PKI and those alleged to be its members or sympathizers, as well as a much broader number of people including Sukarno loyalists, trade unionists and teachers. The design was also to prop up a dictatorial violent regime which the people of Indonesia have rightly consigned to history. It cannot be doubted that these acts, evaluated separately and cumulatively, constitute crimes against humanity, both in International Law and judged by the values and the legal framework of the new reformist era accepted by the people of Indonesia seventeen years ago. This Tribunal has heard the detailed and moving evidence of victims and families as well as the evidence of established experts. It saw this evidence as no more than the mere tip of the iceberg, a few tangible, graphic and painful examples of the devastation of the human beings who appeared before them, as well as the wholesale destruction of the human fabric of a considerable sector of Indonesian society.

The prosecution made the case that other states have aided Suharto’s ruthless regime to achieve these results in the pursuit of the establishment of a particular international order in the context of the Cold War. We will consider this in our final judgement.

The material presented to the judges may amount to proof that other grave crimes have been committed. This issue is also left open for the final judgment.

The judges are sufficiently satisfied of their conclusions to make them public now with confidence. However, we need more time to set out in detail the basis upon which we have come to these conclusions. We shall file a final judgment justifying, with reasons, every conclusion and opinion in this statement within the coming months.

The judges consider the State of Indonesia responsible in the commission of such crimes against humanity as the chain of command was organized from top to bottom of the institutional bodies.

Despite the important and positive changes that took place in Indonesia in 1998, emphasizing the importance of human rights in governance, this has not led to a situation in which the successive governments have genuinely addressed past grave and systematic human rights violations.

In addition to the above conclusions the Tribunal is convinced on the evidence presented that material propaganda advanced in 1965 that motivated the dehumanisation and thus the killing of thousands of people included many lies. In particular, the repeated assertion that the generals were castrated has long been disproved by autopsy reports and these reports have been known to successive governments of Indonesia. It is the duty of the President and government of Indonesia forthwith to acknowledge this falsity, to apologize unreservedly for the harm that these lies have done, and to institute investigations and prosecutions of those perpetrators who are still alive. The Tribunal would have thought that the President would, of course, do all this and be eager to keep his electoral promise. Furthermore, the archives should be opened and the real truth on these crimes against humanity should be established.

In this regard, the Members of this Tribunal note that Komnas HAM commenced investigations in 2008 and that the government of Indonesia has received the commission’s report and recommendations. The government has not implemented these recommendations and in our view should do so as a matter of urgency. These recommendations include appropriate reparation for victims.

We commend the Foundation and the many people who have invested time and energy as well as financial and other resources on this Tribunal. Without all that involvement and determination, such a tribunal would not have been possible. We trust that their efforts will be justified by an appropriate national and international response.

Mireille Fanon-Mendes France Cees Flinterman
John Gittings
Helen Jarvis
Geoffrey Nice
Shadi Sadr
Zak Yacoob (Presiding Judge)

ANNEX 8: List of contributors to research report

Coordinator: Saskia E. Wieringa.

Editorial team: Jess Melvin, Annie Pohlman, Ratna Saptari, Ayu Wahyuningrum and Wijaya Herlambang.

Assistant: Giany Amorita.

Contributors: Wijaya Herlambang; Adam Henry; Adrian Vickers Akihisa Matsuno; Aminah; Atika Nurhaini; Brad Simpson; Coen Holzappel; David Hill; Galuh Wandita; Gerry van Klinken; Helene van Klinken; Ignatius Krisnadi; Ita Fatia Nadia; Jemma Purdey; John Roosa; Kate Mc Gregor; Md Kartaprawira; Mery Kolimon; Roro Sawita; Hersri; Willy van Rooijen; Win Djoyo; Astaman Hasibuan; Olin Monteiro; Artien Utrecht; Alex de Jong; Leslie Dwyer; Matthias Hammer; Dewi Ratnawulan; Fotarisman Zaluchu; Nico Schulte Nordholt; Francisca Pattipilohy; Nursyahbani Katjasungkana; Bonnie Triyana; YAPHI; YPKP.

http://www.rappler.com/indonesia/112233-pengadilan-rakyat-internasional-tragedi-1965-den- haag?cp_rap_source=ymlScrolly#cxrecs_s

http://www.rappler.com/indonesia/112456-alasan-penyelenggaraan-ipt- 1965?cp_rap_source=ymlScrolly#cxrecs_s

http://www.rappler.com/indonesia/112341-lini-masa-international-people-tribunal-tragedi- 1965-di-den-haag

http://www.rappler.com/indonesia/112421-kisah-tahanan-politik-pulau- buru?cp_rap_source=ymlScrolly#cxrecs_s

http://www.rappler.com/indonesia/112623-kesaksian-komisioner-komnas-ham-tribunal- pengadilan-1965?cp_rap_source=ymlScrolly#cxrecs_s

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/08/13/078691518/pengadilan-rakyat-tragedi-1965- akan-diadakan-di-den-haag

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/14/063718808/sidang-rakyat-1965-hakim- indonesa-harus-bertanggung-jawab

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/14/063718809/sidang-rakyat-hakim-indonesia- usut-pelaku-yang-masih-hidup

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/11/063717941/jk-sidang-den-haag-pengadilan- semu-tak-usah-ditanggapi

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/10/078717630/diadili-di-belanda-kalla- pemerintah-tak-sudi-minta-maaf

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/10/063717604/pengadilan-ham-den-haag-kalla- kita-akan-adili-belanda

http://www.tempochannel.com/detail/video/4602841030001/ungkap-peristiwa-1965- pengadilan-rakyat-digelar-di-belanda?autoStart=true

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/16/078719338/sidang-rakyat-1965-dpr- pemerintah-harus-minta-maaf

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/05/078716260/tragedi-g-30s-1965-akan-diadili- benarkah-ada-intimidasi

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/05/063716251/kemenlu-pengadilan-rakyat- tragedi-1965-langkah-mundur

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/05/063716251/kemenlu-pengadilan-rakyat- tragedi-1965-langkah-mundur

http://seleb.tempo.co/read/news/2015/10/23/114712469/ubud-writers-festival-batal-bahas- g30s-ini-alasan-polisi

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/10/23/078712403/ubud-writers-readers-festival- dilarang-bahas-g30s-1965

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/05/063716251/kemenlu-pengadilan-rakyat- tragedi-1965-langkah-mundur

http://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/11/16/078719310/sidang-rakyat-kasus-1965- dituding-sepihak

http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/majalah/2015/11/151111_trensosial_tentang_ipt http://m.news.viva.co.id/news/read/702014-mencari-keadilan-di-den-haag

Other

http://tengkuariydipantara.blogspot.co.id/2015/04/surat-terbuka-dewi-sukarno-kepada.html

AJAR, Asian Justice and Rights

Amankan, to secure

Ansor, youth wing of the NU

APIK Asosiasi Perempuan Indonesia untuk Keadilan, Indonesian Women’s Association for Justice

AURI, Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia, Air Force of the Indonesian Republic
Bersih lingkungan, lit clean environment i.e. no family links with (a member of) the PKI and

its affiliated organisations
BTI, Barisan Tani Indonesia, Indonesian Farners ́ Front
Cap, stamp
CAH, Crimes Against Humanity
CEDAW, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CGMI, Concentrasi Gerakan Mahasiswa Indonesia, Indonesian Student Movement Center CIA, (US) Central Intelligence Agency
CPM, Corps Polisi Militar, Military Police
DI/TII, Darul Islam, Tentara Islam Indonesia, House of Islam, Indonesian Muslim Army DPRD, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, Regional Representative Council

ELSAM, Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat, Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy

EUROSEAS, European Association for Southeast Asian Studies

FAKI, Forum Anti Komunis Indonesia Indonesian Anti- Communist Forum

FPI, Front Pembela Islam, Islamic Defenders’ Front

G30S, Gerakan 30 September, 30 September Movement

Genjer, yellow velvetleaf, a plant commonly found in the rice fields

Gerwani, Gerakan Wanita Indonesia, Indonesian women’s Movement

Golkar, Golongan Karya, organisational groups (government party during New Order)

Haj, pilgirmage to Mecca

Halaqah, meeting of Muslim clerics

HRC, Human Rights Committee

ICAIOS, International Centre for Aceh and Indian Ocean Studies

ICCPR, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

ICTB, International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh

ICTY, International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslaovia

IKOHI, Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia, Indonesian Union of Families of the Disappeared

ISSI, Institut Sejarah Sosial Indonesia, Indonesian Institute for Social History IW, Impunity Watch
IPT, International People’s Tribunal
JP, Jurnal Perempuan, Women’s Journal

JPIT, Jaringan Perempuan Indonesia Timur, Women ́s Network in Eastern Indonesia

KKPK, Koalisi Keadilan dan Pengungkapan Kebenaran, Coalition for Justice and the Revelation of Truth

Kodam, Komando Daerah Militer, Regional Military Command Kodim, Komando Distrik Militer, District Military Command

KomnasHAM, Komisi Nasional untuk Hak Asasi Manusia, National Human Rights Commission

Komnas Perempuan, Komisi Nasional Perempuan, National Women ́s Rights Commission KontraS, Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan, Commission for

Disappeared People and Victims of Violence

KOPKAMTIB, Komando Operasi Pemulihan Keamanan dan Ketertiban, Operational Command to Restore Order and Security

KOTI, Komando Operasi Tinggi, High Operatinl Command Kyai, head of pesantren

Lakpesdam NU, Lembaga Kajian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia, Institute for the teaching and Development of Human Resources of the Council of Muslim Scholars

LIPI, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Indonesian Institute of Sciences
LPH YAPHI, Lembaga Pengabdian Hukum Yekti Angudi Piyadeging Hukum Indonesia,

(Institute for the Devotion to Justice, Truly Searching for the Uprightness of Indonesian Law

LP KROB, Lembaga Pembelaan Korban Orde Baru, Institute for the Defence of Victims of the New Order

LPSK, Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, Agency for witness and Victims Protection 169

MP Member of Parliament

MPRS, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara, Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly

MPR, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, People’s Consultative Assembly
MPRS, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara, Provisional People’s Consultative

Assembly
Nawacita, nine aspirations, the programme which President Joko Widodo promised to fulfil

NIOD, Nederlands Institute voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Netherlands Institute for War Documentation

NTT, Nusa Tenggara Timur, East of the southeastern islands Nobar, nonton bareng, watching together
NU, Nahdlatul Ulema, Council of Islamic Scholars
OC, Organizing Committee

OPSUS, Operasi Khusus, Special Operations
Pangkopkamtib, Panglima Kopkamtib, Chief of the Kopkamtib

P4, Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila, Guiding course on the Realisation and Implementation of the Pancasila

Pancasila, lit 5 pillars, state philosophy
Pangdam, Panglima Daerah, regional commander
Permesta, Perdjuangan (Rakyat) Semesta, Total People’s Struggle (a regional uprising) Pesantren, religious boarding school

PKI, Partai Komunis Indonesia, Indonesian Communist Party PNI, Partai Nasional Indonesia, Indonesian National Party Pomda, Polisi Militer Daerah, Regional Military Police

PR, Pemuda Rakyat, People’s Youth

PSI, Partai Sosialis Indonesia, Indonesian Socilaist Party

Reformasi, Reformation, period starting in 1998, with the fall of the dictator President Suharto

RPKAD, Resimen Para Komando Angkatan Darat, Para Commando regiment of the Army

Santriwan-santriwati, male and female students at a religious boarding school

Sarbupri, Sarekat Buruh Perkebunan Republik Indonesia, the Indonesian Republic’s Union of Plantation Workers

Seskoad, Sekolah Staf dan Komando Angkatan Darat, Army Staff and Command School Tapol, tahanan politik, political prisoner
TNI, Tentara Nasional Indonesia, Indonesian National Army
UI, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesian University

UNPAD, Universitas Padajaran Padjarajaran University (Bandung) VAW, violence against women
Wajib lapor, obliged to report
Wayang orang, theatre form with live actors

YLBHI, Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia, Foundation of Institutes of Legal Aid in Indonesia