PEMENUHAN HAK KORBAN PELANGGARAN HAM BERAT 1965–1966 DALAM KERANGKA HUKUM POSITIF

Yudhistira Wahyu Pradana, NIM.: 21103040089 (2026) PEMENUHAN HAK KORBAN PELANGGARAN HAM BERAT 1965–1966 DALAM KERANGKA HUKUM POSITIF. Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (PEMENUHAN HAK KORBAN PELANGGARAN HAM BERAT 1965–1966 DALAM KERANGKA HUKUM POSITIF) 21103040089_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (10MB) | Preview
	Text (PEMENUHAN HAK KORBAN PELANGGARAN HAM BERAT 1965–1966 DALAM KERANGKA HUKUM POSITIF) 21103040089_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (12MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The gross human rights violations of 1965–1966 constitute crimes against humanity. This has led to the fulfillment of the rights of the victims in accordance with the mandate of Act Number 26 of 2000 (the Human Rights Court Act). Meanwhile, the practice of fulfilling the rights of victims of the 1965–1966 Gross Human Rights Violations still shows disparities, due to the absence of a judicial mechanism that has yet to be implemented. Therefore, this research seeks to examine further how the practice of fulfilling victim rights is carried out under the positive legal framework in Indonesia to provide and ensure a sense of justice for the victims. This research is a field research that collects data from interviews with relevant parties, such as the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), Institution for the Protection of Witnesses and Victims (LPSK), and individual human rights activists, as primary data. In addition to primary data, this research also uses secondary data sources, including legal laws and the results of literature reviews on topics that are directly or indirectly related to the subject of this research. These two types of data will be analyzed using the concepts of transitional justice and state responsibility as the theoretical framework. The research findings point to two main conclusions. First, efforts to uphold the rights of victims of the 1965–1966 gross human rights violations still reveal a gap between positive law specifically the mandate of the Human Rights Court Act, and the reality on the ground, due to a deadlock in judicial mechanisms. This deadlock stems from differing understandings between Komnas HAM as the investigator authority and the Kejaksaan Agung as the invesgating officer authority. Other factors include the prevalence of impunity and the lack of political will among policymakers to establish an human rights court. Second, from a transitional justice perspective, the state’s current efforts remain trapped in a pragmatic approach. In transitional justice terminology, the right to justice and truth should be realized first through judicial mechanisms before the right to reparations is granted. So far, the Indonesian government has instead prioritized the fulfillment of reparations, which are provided through medical assistance and rehabilitation by the LPSK. However, the practice of providing such assistance is often hindered by binding administrative regulations and the LPSK’s budget limitations.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item