Delayed Justice: ICJ's Potential of Indonesian 1965 Human Rights Violation

The dark tragedy of 1965--1966 has long been a heavy burden on the collective memory of the Indonesian people. This event was marked by mass killings, arbitrary detentions, and torture of millions of individuals accused of being involved with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and affiliated organizations, leaving deep wounds that have yet to heal. Six decades later, justice for the victims and their families remains an unfulfilled dream. Impunity for the perpetrators, both those still alive and those who have passed away, continues to overshadow efforts at reconciliation and resolution of the past. Amidst the domestic legal impasse, a crucial question arises: could the extradition of suspected perpetrators to an international court, particularly through the potential involvement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), be the last hope for upholding justice and freeing Indonesia from the burden of its past? 

The scale and scope of human rights violations in 1965--1966 were massive. Estimates of the number of fatalities vary, but some sources cite figures in the millions (Cribb & Coppel, 2009). These were citizens accused of affiliating with the PKI or related organizations, targeted for murder, detention, and torture without due process (Melvin, 2018). These events not only took lives and freedom but also left deep collective trauma for the nation. As stated in the Final Report of the Pro Justitia Investigation into Gross Human Rights Violations in 1965-1966 by the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights (2012), there is strong evidence of gross human rights violations amounting to crimes against humanity.

 Unfortunately, to date, domestic justice mechanisms have failed to provide accountability. Various efforts have been made, ranging from investigations by the National Human Rights Commission, parliamentary recommendations, to pressure from civil society, but these have always been hampered by political complexity and powerful interests (Human Rights Watch, 2017). This ongoing impunity not only hinders genuine reconciliation and acknowledgment of the truth but also has the potential to set a bad precedent that serious human rights violations can be left unpunished. This puts Indonesia in a difficult position to fully come to terms with its dark past. 

In the context of gross human rights violations where the alleged perpetrators may have fled or settled abroad, extradition becomes a highly relevant legal mechanism. Extradition is the process by which one country surrenders a person accused or convicted of a crime to another country for trial or punishment. This is based on the principle that serious crimes should not go unpunished, and justice must be upheld regardless of geographical boundaries (Cassese, 2008). 

For the 1965 case, the issue of extradition arises if there are suspected perpetrators who are currently within the jurisdiction of another country. Extradition can be a concrete step to ensure that those responsible face legal proceedings, even if domestic justice is hampered. The challenges include the availability of bilateral extradition agreements, the political will of the country where the suspected perpetrator is located, and the availability of strong evidence in accordance with international standards. However, if successful, extradition can send a strong message about Indonesia's or the international community's commitment to accountability. 

When discussing the "international table" for the 1965 case, it is important to understand the roles of various entities. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, tasked with resolving disputes between countries based on international law (ICJ, n.d.). It is important to note that the ICJ is not a criminal court like the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals. Instead, its focus is on the responsibility of states for violations of international law. 

Although the ICJ will not directly prosecute the individuals responsible for the 1965 tragedy, its potential lies in its ability to affirm Indonesia's international responsibility for the mass crimes that occurred. The ICJ could issue a ruling stating that the gross human rights violations in 1965 constituted violations of international law, which could then serve as a strong basis for claims for compensation for victims, an official apology from the state, and non-repetition measures (guarantees that similar events will not be repeated). This process could once again draw global attention to the 1965 tragedy, creating strong moral and political pressure on the Indonesian government to follow up. Formal recognition by the ICJ of the tragedy could also serve as a catalyst for a more meaningful reconciliation process at the national level. 

However, the path to the ICJ is fraught with significant challenges. The ICJ's jurisdiction is consensual, meaning that Indonesia must voluntarily agree to its jurisdiction for this case, which is likely to be rejected given the political sensitivity and sovereignty issues involved. Furthermore, since the ICJ adjudicates disputes between states, it would be difficult to formulate the appropriate "dispute" regarding domestic human rights violations, unless another country dares to file a lawsuit based on universal concern over gross human rights violations---a step that is extremely rare in practice. 

Ultimately, the extradition of suspected perpetrators and the potential for justice to be served through international forums are not merely legal procedures, but a path toward true recovery and reconciliation. For victims and their families, justice is a prerequisite for closure and restoration of dignity. If perpetrators can be brought to justice, both domestically and abroad, it will send a strong signal that such crimes will not go unpunished. 

Letting go of the burdens of the past means facing the truth, acknowledging mistakes, and ensuring accountability. Extradition, as a means of cross-border law enforcement, can help Indonesia move beyond the shadow of the 1965 tragedy. This will enable the nation to move forward with a stronger moral foundation, build a healthier democracy, and ensure that similar events never recur in the future. Justice upheld, even after decades, is the key to truly freeing oneself from the shackles of history. 

Justice for the 1965-1966 tragedy in Indonesia has been delayed for too long. The deadlock at the domestic level demands that we explore every potential avenue, including international mechanisms such as extradition and the role of the ICJ. Although the path to international justice is fraught with diplomatic and legal obstacles, the idea of bringing this case to a global forum demonstrates an unwavering commitment to justice for the victims. The ICJ's ability to affirm state responsibility and the potential for extradition as a means of individual accountability could serve as significant moral and legal leverage. Resolving the 1965 case is not only about punishing the perpetrators, but more fundamentally about restoring the dignity of the victims, acknowledging the truth, and ensuring that similar crimes are not repeated. Indonesia's future, free from the burden of the past, will depend greatly on our courage to pursue justice, wherever and however it may be found.