Case N° IDS/10 - SRI BINTANG PAMUNGKAS - INDONESIA

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 159th session
(Beijing, 21 September 1996)*

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/159/11(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 158th session (April 1996), concerning the case of Sri Bintang Pamungkas, of Indonesia,

Taking into consideration the information provided by the Indonesian delegation at the hearing held on the occasion of the 96th Inter-Parliamentary Conference (Beijing, September 1996),

Also taking into account the information provided by the sources on 8 May, 12 July and 12 September 1996,

Recalling that Mr. Pamungkas, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR), elected on the PPP (United Development Party) ticket and known as an outspoken critic of the Government, was originally indicted under Article 104 (crimes against the State security, carrying the death penalty) of having instigated or participated in demonstrations which took place against President Suharto on the occasion of his visit to Hanover and Dresden in April 1995; that, however, this charge had to be dropped for lack of evidence and that subsequently, on 24 October 1995, he was indicted on charges of having, at a seminar he gave on 9 April 1995 at a German University, called both President Suharto and former President Soekarno dictators who violated the 1945 Constitution, and of criticizing the excessive role of the Indonesian executive,

Recalling that, according to the source, Mr. Pamungkas was interrogated in contravention of necessary legal requirements governing police procedures against MPs,

Considering that the trial started on 20 October 1995 and that on 8 May 1996 the Court handed down its verdict in which it found Mr. Pamungkas guilty of deliberately insulting President Suharto by suggesting that he was a "dictator" at the seminar he gave at a Berlin University on 9 April 1995; that the Court sentenced him to 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment,

Recalling that Mr. Pamungkas denies having uttered the words attributed to him in the indictment and that in his defence he stated inter alia that his trial was a political one aimed at silencing a Government critic, particularly in view of the 1997 parliamentary and 1998 presidential elections,

Considering that on 28 June 1996 he lodged an appeal against the decision and that he is free pending the outcome of the appeal,

Considering also that, according to the source, the decision of the court is flawed because it failed to take into account relevant information provided through testimonies and submissions to the Court, because some statements of witnesses were distorted, because the Court accepted the use of a tape-recording as evidence although this contravenes Article 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and because the transcript had been shortened and the alleged offending words were unclear, incomplete and taken out of context,

Considering that, by virtue of a decision taken by the Attorney General on 17 April 1995, Mr. Pamungkas was banned from travelling abroad; that he has appealed against the decision and won the case in the first instance; that, however, the Attorney General imposed a second travel ban on him for a period of one year beginning on 17 April 1996, and that Mr. Pamungkas has also lodged an appeal against this new travel ban,

Recalling that in February 1995 Mr. Pamungkas' party, the PPP, decided to "recall" him from his parliamentary seat, a decision which came into effect on 8 May 1995 after President Suharto had signed the official dismissal decree; that, according to the source, the relevant procedures were flawed; that he lodged a complaint against the party's decision to have him recalled which was reportedly dismissed in the first instance as being "unclear"; that Mr. Pamungkas' appeal against this decision is currently pending,

Considering that, on 29 May 1996, Mr. Pamungkas launched a new party, the Indonesian Democratic Union Party, which has not obtained official recognition; that, according to the authorities, only three parties are legally recognized while Mr. Pamungkas maintains that there is no law forbidding the establishment of new political parties,

1. Thanks the Indonesian delegation for its co-operation and the information it provided;

2. Remains concerned that Mr. Pamungkas was first summoned and interrogated on suspicion of having participated in the demonstrations against President Suharto; that when no evidence of that could be found, the investigations, instead of being dropped, shifted to the seminar he gave on 9 April; and still fears that this may denote a deliberate attempt to have him prosecuted;

3. Considers that, in the incriminated statement which he denies having made as attributed to him in the indictment, Mr. Pamungkas expressed a political appreciation and thus merely exercised his right to freedom of speech;

4. Expresses grave concern at the sentence to 34 months' imprisonment handed down on him, which would effectively rule out his participating in the next elections;

5. Expresses grave concern at the allegations of serious flaws in the judgment, including that of a tape-recording transcript accepted as evidence in contravention of Indonesian law, and notes that Mr. Pamungkas has lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court, which is still pending;

6. Expresses similar concern that the Attorney General has once again imposed a travel ban on Mr. Pamungkas for a period of one year even though an earlier travel ban had been lifted by the Jakarta Administrative Court;

7. Recalls the constant position of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that, once elected, all members of Parliament hold their mandate by popular will, and therefore reiterates its regret that Indonesian law empowers political parties to have representatives of the people "recalled";

8. Notes that Mr. Pamungkas has set up a new political party which has reportedly failed to obtain official recognition, and would appreciate receiving a copy of the law regulating the establishment of political parties;

9. Requests the Secretary General to convey these concerns to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

10. Further requests the Secretary General, in conjunction with his presence, on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at the forthcoming "Forum on Tourism" in Bali, to travel to Jakarta in order to gather both from the authorities and the parliamentarian concerned and his lawyers information on all aspects of this case with a view to facilitating progress towards a satisfactory settlement;

11. Requests the Indonesian authorities to agree to the mission, which cannot take place without their prior approval;

12. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to pursue the examination of this case and report to it at its next session (April 1997).