On Saturday, 7 September 2024, Munir Said Thalib Murder Case entered its twentieth year. Munir, was a human rights activist who was murdered by arsenic during a flight to the Netherlands in 2004. And the case continued to inspire question about who was the murderer?
In a press conference on Thursday (5/9) by the Solidarity Action Committee for Munir (KASUM), Munir’s family and activists again demanded that the National Human Rights Commission sped up the investigation that started early in 2024. They urged the Commission to focus on completing the investigation by using Law No. 26 Year 2000 on Human Rights Court.
The conference urged for advocacy and litigation because it is critical to complete the Munir Murder investigation case because of Munir’s historical significance as human rights defender. If the State fails to pursue justice, to try the perpetrator and to prevent similar things to happen again, this would constitute emergency situation. Some press conference participants came from Indonesian Women Alliance.
One resource person, Usman Hamid was a team member established by President SBY in 2004-2005. He said that KASUM would remind about the State’s responsibility to complete the investigation on the murder of human rights activist, Munir. He lamented that there was no formal initiative by the State - including legal path - to consider re-opening the case. Everyone knows that Munir murder is a structural symbol or a symbol of problem in Indonesian political power. Munir conducted significant advocacy on human rights cases and on structural violence in Indonesia. So his murder was seen as a way to stop his struggle to help victims and families to deal with the humanr rights issue.
Second, the murder itself showed a systematic dimension of a crime. It was not only systematic in meaning but also in planning for the murder which was related to Munir’s actions while he was alive, in fighting for justice, in reformation of military, police and intelligent organisations, in in fighting for new policies.
A number of policies that Munir focused on included the 2004 Law on Indonesian Armed Forces and Draft 2004 Law on Truth and Reconciliation Commission.The two laws were ratified not long after Munir’s murder. The murder was also interpreted as a way to kill community participation, people’s participation, activists’ participation in just policy, development policies, security policies or policies about serious human rights violation in the past whose effects could be seen today. They included measures to weaken victims’ power, measures to intimidate witnesses, and measures to change location of incidents. The reasons may vary - including as a pretense like development or building monuments.The systematic dimension can be seen through the involvement of the elites including the Indonesian Intelligence Agency and Airline. At the field level, it was also seen through planning which involved not just one person but also accessing a person’s trip schedule, which should have been private. If the perpetrator knew when Munir was to take Garuda flight, the person may not have access to the same flight and did what he did without any assistance from the airline. Munir’s flight was an international flight by a State airline, so it was not possible that anybody would do it independently without any inside assistance.
Involvement of other parties aside from the airline became clearer after the completion of the fact-finding team. These dimensions were not totally addressed during court proceeding so far. For this reason, the murder was not an ordinary murder or an ordinary crime murder. This had to be considered as an extraordinary crime, by using human rights law and human rights court law. Through the perspective of human rights, Munir murder is extra-judicial killing - a murder done by the government authority without a valid judicial process. It was a crime against humanity - a systematic attack against civilian. The specific form could be murder, deprivation of liberty. And if one looked at how Munir suffered pain and vomiting, that was a time of torture, according to human rights. It constituted extreme mental and physical pain to death. Hence, the murder could be seen as a torture that led to death - a cruel, inhumane, and degrading torture and extra-judicial murder, even a crime against humanity, involving torture and deprivation of liberty.
Questioning the Work of the National Human Rights Commission in Munir Murder Case
"This is where we asked - why did it take so long for the National Human Rights Commission who had the mandate to investigate? It took very long for the National Human Rights Commission to investigate the case, too bureaucratic, too technocratic. It was different during previous presidents when the National Human Rights Commission conducted investigations, the time-frame then was clear: three months, with measured performance, weekly reporting, who were invited to come for interviews, what documents being examined, what witnesses were invited. People deemed responsible would be called upon. All proceeded with openness. The latest investigation seemed to use a closed channel in the name of to hide events or to deliberately hide the case," said Usman Hamid during the conference.
Usman added that he believed that the National Human Rights Commisison did its work (Komnas HAM_red). He only wanted to make sure that the judicial process would lead to justice. process should not have been closed unless it dealt with names, suspected of being involved in the murder. Even that would come at the end of the report. When the report weas completed and submitted to the investigator(s), there would certainly be names to be considered as suspects. Then presumption of innocance must be upheld. That would be at the end - meaning when the report was completed, and not during the process. In the name of , there should have been openness.
Pretty from Kontras stated that they expected the National Human Rights Commission gave transparent report in order to prevent a similar case to happen again. She gave an example of Bumi Flora case in Aceh which led to the establishment of an Adhoc Team since 2013 and yet there was no investigation result of Bumi Flora by the National Human Rights Commission. If the National Human Rights Commission issued regular letter to victims regarding the result of the investigation process from 2013 to 2024, that 11-year letter could be bound (into a document) by the victims’ families. Pretty said that the National Human Rights Commission could then produce monthly progress reports, instead of saying that the investigation was not completed because there was no budget, or because it was not a primary priority for investigation, and so on.
Pretty did not want Munir case to be like Bumi Flora case in Aceh, which was then abandoned by the National Human Rights Commission without any form of transparency about the progress. The international network was also monitoring Munir case becauseon 11 March 2024, the International Commission on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had asked Indonesia about how it handled Munir case and about the transparency of its handling. There were many eyes watching the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission and Pretty hoped that in the current situation, the National Human Rights Commission should have issued progress reports and transparency of its investigation to the public, to the families of victims and to their lawyers.
Second, Munir was an exemplary human rights defender who suffered from State violence. Kontras data from 2000-2024 suggested that four years prior to Munir murder, there were 30 human rights defenders suffering from violence by the State in six provinces in Indonesia - Aceh, Jakarta, West Java, South Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi and North Sumatera. Thirty victims suffered wounds while 11 victims were dead - a total of 41 human rights defenders - plus 61 human rights defenders were arbitrarily arrested and detained by a number of State institutions such as the Armed Forces (4 incidents), the Police and unknown individuals (5 incidents). In 2024 Kontras noted that there were 30 victims in 14 provinces. Hence, we could clearly see that since 2004 when Munir was murdered until 2024, violence against human rights defenders intensified (between 2000 and 2024) and the State never learned its lesson, indicating that perhaps the State itself was behind the violence against human rights defenders.
Kontras expected that the National Human Rights Commisison as a State agency, could be tactical, creative and strategic in using its authority to make known of its knowledge about Munir murder investigation to other agencies, for example through Police education/training or through Law or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Pretty believed that if it could be done now, then that would be much better so that the National Human Rights Commission became progressive entity.
Vice director of Imparsial, Ardi added his view about the National Human Rights Commission in relation to Munir murder - that the Commission was helping perpetuate impunity. The consequences was dire, because Kontras data as presented by Pretty showed that repeat violence by the State or State Agencies was possible because the State, including the National Human Rights Commission, perpetuated impunity by continuously deferring thepresentation of Munir Murder case.
Ardi added that Munir case was not an ordinary murder but a systematic assault against human rights defenders that involved the State. That fact was clear and unambiguous. Yet the State kept deferring and not being pro-active in revealing the case. Impunity perpetrated by the State became a trigger for repeat violence by law enforcement agencies towards human rights defenders, towards students, towards peasants and criminalisation of environmental activists.
Other resoure person, Arif Maulana from Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI), said that his office had sent a legal opinion since 202, with regards to pro-justitia process still going on within the National Human Rights Commission. It was a very long process, because the case had been handled by the National HUman Rights Commission since 2004. Arif said that the investigation process should have started then, yet in reality it only happened in the last four years. He itiretated what had been suggested previously that the vile murder concocted through vile deliberation by State intelligence actors and Garuda Indonesia in 2004, was not an ordinary crime but a serious crime - a crime against humanity, based on HUman Rights Court Law.
Arif then suggested that the State, particularly the Nastional Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General should have finalised the case, because otherwise there would be repeat offense, asault against human rights defenders, and citizens who fought for human rights .
We Were Multiplying Brave Minds like Munir
Bivitri Susanti, like KASUM, wanted to say that twenty years was not a short time, as generations changed, people changed, advocacy methods changed, even secretariats changed. Yet to date, the case went nowhere. Many thought about what happened to the case in the future, and they were never tired of fighting although they were tired of seeing students being beaten during 22 August protest. Bivitri said that one way to do was to declare Munir case as a serious human rights violation. Then we seethe impacts to date, and be surprised why it still happened? It happened in Kanjuruhan and in Semarang and in Makassar. The main reason was because there was impunity. The perpetrators were still there and their families were still involved in politics. How to deal with the issue when the people who murdered Munir were still in power and their families were active in politics?
Second, Munir’s legacy was by establishing an organisation in order to invite more people to defend justice and human rights. There was no other objective. Munir established such an organisation, not to become its board or to be invited to speak. He dedicated that organisation to attract more people to defend justice, which then triggered slogans such as ‘Munir remains present and will multiply.’
There were anxieties and fears instilled on use and our present generation, then we reflected on what Munir had done in such situations. Did he accept money for his friends in order to support policies or something which led to marginalisation or neglect of serious human rights cases? Certainly not. Was Munir afraid that he would not dare to come out because there was repression? Obviously not. On 7 September, we were multiplying our brave thoughts, and not only strategic and integrated,” said Bivitri. She added that what activists did now was not a romantisme, not for money, but for defending rights. That was Munir’s values that had to continue.
Jihan from Perempuan Mahardhika also said that Munir had string ties to women human rights defenders: women as ordinary people, workers, peasants, students. One he fought for was rape and murder of Marsinah by the New Order, abduction and forced disappearance of activists ‘98. If Munir case could be resolved then a whole lot of other cases like Marsinah case would be open.
There was Diva Suukyi Larasati, Munir second child during a press conference, who issued a demand to Presidents Joko Widodo and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). "My demand is always the same since I was two years old to today when I am 22 years old, that is bring into reality your promises to my mother and family, that you will complete my father’s case," said Diva Suukyi Larasati. (Ast)
