scholarly journals Analisis Pasal 43 Undang-Undang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Kasus Penghilangan Orang secara Paksa Tahun 1997/1998

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
Satya Kumarajati
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
New Order ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
Full Investigation

This paper examines problems as the result of the absence of statement on the establishment of Human Rights Ad hoc Court in the Human Rights Court Act Number 26 Year 2000. By highlingting the kidnapping of activists in the final days of New Order regime in 1997-1998, as Article 43 of Human Rights Court Act, the power to adjudicate is attached to the Human Rights Court. However, the absence of explicit provisions to the establishment of teh Ad hoc Court of Human Rights whether before or after the preliminary investigation to be made by the Indonesian Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), Attorney General argues that no subsequent measures on the results of the investigation made by Komnas HAM into the process of investigation due to the Ad hoc Court of Human Rights was not established.  The aim of this paper is to provide views on the establishment of the Ad hoc Court of Human Rights by using doctrinal research with statute and case approaces. As this paper shows, it concludes that the Ad hoc Court of Human Rights was established after premilinary investigation and full investigation as proposed by the House of Representatives which is assigned throug Presidential Resolution. Keywords: Ad hoc Court of Human Rights, Preliminary Investigation, Investigation

scholarly journals Akibat Hukum Berlakunya Putusan MK Nomor 18/PUU/V/2007 Terhadap Usulan DPR Dalam Pembentukan Pengadilan Ham Ad Hoc

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Xavier Nugraha ◽  
Maulia Madina ◽  
Ulfa Septian Dika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Initial Step ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
National Human ◽  
Conceptual Study ◽  
Year 2000

<div><p>Artikel ini merupakan kajian konseptual terkait usulan DPR sebagai langkah awal dalam pembentukan Pengadilan HAM <em>Ad Hoc</em>. Dalam penjelasan Pasal 43 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2000 Tentang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia, dijelaskan bahwa usulan DPR tersebut didasarkan pada dugaan telah terjadinya pelanggaran HAM  berat yang <em>locus</em> dan <em>tempus delicti</em>nya terjadi sebelum diundangkannya Undang-Undang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia. Frasa dugaan dalam penjelasan tersebut menimbulkan problematika karena melakukan dugaan tersebut adalah fungsi penyelidikan sesuai Pasal 1 angka 5  Undang-Undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2000. DPR seolah menjalankan fungsi untuk melakukan penyelidikan dalam yang seharusnya merupakan  kewenangan Komnas HAM sesuai Pasal 18 Undang-Undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2000. Hal ini tumpang tindih kewenangan DPR dan Komnas HAM. Pasca Putusan MK Nomor 18/PUU/V/2007, DPR wajib untuk mengajukan usulan pengadilan HAM <em>Ad Hoc</em> , setalah adanya dugaan pelanggaran HAM berat sebelum diundangkannya Undang-Undang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Komnas HAM</p><em> This article is a conceptual study related to the House of Representatives proposal as an initial step in the establishment of the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court. In the explanation of Article 43 paragraph (2) of Law Number 26 Year 2000 concerning the Human Rights Court, it was explained that the House of Representatives proposal was based on the alleged occurrence of gross human rights violations that had locus and temporal delays before the promulgation of the Human Rights Court Law. The alleged phrase in the explanation raises a problem because making such an assumption is a function of investigation in accordance with Article 1 number 5 of Act Number 26 of 2000. The House of Representatives seems to carry out a function to conduct investigations which should be the authority of the National Human Rights Commission in accordance with Article 18 of Law Number 26 Year 2000. This authoriy  overlaps the authority of the DPR and the National Human Rights Commission. After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU / V / 2007, the House of Representatives was obliged to submit an Ad Hoc Human Rights court proposal, following the alleged gross human rights violations before the promulgation of the Human Rights Court Law by the National Commission of Human Rights</em></div>

Contemporary International Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto ◽  
Cançado Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Cross Fertilization

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

Conflicts between Human Rights and the ECtHR

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stijn Smet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rights Conflicts

This chapter proposes a structured balancing test for the resolution of human rights conflicts. The chapter first critiques the European Court of Human Right’s ad hoc balancing approach to human rights conflicts. Analysis of a pair of concrete judgments—Obst v. Germany and Schüth v. Germany—illustrates the shortcomings of that approach. The chapter then proposes an alternative, structured balancing test. The structured balancing test, composed of a limited set of seven balancing criteria, relies on comparison of the relative strength of reasons in favour of conflicting human rights to determine which right should prevail in a given conflict. By doing away with contested balancing notions, such as ‘weight’ and ‘scales’, the structured balancing test also aims to overcome the incommensurability challenge to balancing. The test is finally applied to Obst and Schüth to illustrate how its use could improve the Court’s adjudicatory practice.

The Interrelated and Interdependent Nature of Children’s Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-98
Author(s):  
Savitri Goonesekere
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Children's Rights ◽  
Children’S Rights ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
Global Agenda

The chapter analyses children’s human rights as universal norms and standards incorporated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that are relevant in diverse national contexts. Discussing national experiences and the quasi-jurisprudence of treaty bodies, the chapter argues that understanding the interrelated nature of the different groups of rights in the CRC is essential for effective implementation of these rights. It is suggested that the concept of the indivisibility of human rights and the global agenda of sustainable development reinforce the need for this approach. The chapter also discusses the interdependence, compatibility, and conflict between children’s rights and the human rights of other groups, such as parents, women, and a community with which a child connects as he or she grows to adulthood. The chapter argues that incorporating children’s rights in national constitutions, rather than ad hoc legislation, encourages this holistic approach to implementing children’s rights.

scholarly journals Ending Impunity: The Case for War Crimes Trials in Liberia

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhagi Marong ◽  
Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sierra Leonean ◽  
Post Conflict

AbstractThis article argues that Liberia owes a duty under both international humanitarian and human rights law to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes, including torture, rape and extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians, committed in that country by the warring parties in the course of fourteen years of brutal conflict. Assuming that Liberia owes a duty to punish the grave crimes committed on its territory, the article then evaluates the options for prosecution, starting with the possible use of Liberian courts. The authors argue that Liberian courts are unable, even if willing, to render credible justice that protects the due process rights of the accused given the collapse of legal institutions and the paucity of financial, human and material resources in post-conflict Liberia. The authors then examine the possibility of using international accountability mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc international criminal tribunal as well as a hybrid court for Liberia. For various legal and political reasons, the authors conclude that all of these options are not viable. As an alternative, they suggest that because the Special Court for Sierra Leone has already started the accountability process for Liberia with the indictment of Charles Taylor in 2003, and given the close links between the Liberian and Sierra Leonean conflicts, the Special Court would be a more appropriate forum for international prosecutions of those who perpetrated gross humanitarian and human rights law violations in Liberia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document