Rabu, 17 Oktober 2007

group discussion

resume of the lecture; state vs market:
The lecture tries to elaborate two institutions in dev; state and market. The each role of the two has been debated because of the ideology and politic which are addressed/tracked to them.
2. Washington consensus which was born in the era of cold war said as the recipes used by WB-IMF in doing their activity in LDCs
3.The recipes of WB-IMF are fault to LDCs
4.Some new books and intellectuals ( Stiglitz, pilger, Chomsky, vandana siva, john perkins, etc) have shown that WB –IMF are actually very political which is controlled by DCs interests to occupy LDCs.
5.Some LDCs showed their good growing when they stop relation to WB –IMF- WTO; such as Malaysia, china, and now Venezuela,cs
6.The lecturer concluded that state is the most important to play the game in the market; means that state must watch out, protect and control the dynamic of market.

THE QUESTION IS
What should LDCs do in order to the facts that WB-IMF are political economic tools of DCs to occupy LDCs?”

alternatives:
1. bring the institutions to the litigation process ( national or international litigation)
2. abolish the institution.
3. reform the institution or create new institution which gives positive prospects to the global justice.
..................group C ; 2101.

Sabtu, 13 Oktober 2007

state vs market

Should govt or shoud not govt involves to the market?
1. clasic economy: free market
2.maynard keynes: in many ways, govt must control the market.
3. neo clasic; derived by washington consensus:
-fiscal discipline
-redirection of public expenditure
-tax reform
-interest rate liberalization
-competitive exchange rate
trade liberalization
competitive exchange rate
-trade liberalization
-liberalization of FDI
Privatization
-Deregulation
-Secure property rights

there are 3 slogan of neos by washington conss: Stabilize, liberalize, Privatize.


*an example of the work of neo -clasic: the east asia miracle ( indonesia,malaysia, south korea, etc..) which were fault.
the report provided by john page( WB consultant): newly industrialize economies of south east asia.

the conclusion:
state is the most powerful institution to chanel and tame the power of market ( Boy

Rabu, 10 Oktober 2007

culture disorientation..........

shit..! oh my god...:)
how can i get the term? i do not know if the term is exist in dictionary
or even in sociology term. but it is just come up suddenly to my mind,
when i woke up in the unpleasant dawn..but its ok, i got a terminology
that might be able to describe my condition nowadays. what the hell are it?
Why I found a word that makes me think too hard to find its definition...:)

culture disorientation; when i want something or when thinking something,
there are several languanges which are speaking in my mind. in other words, I interprete something in my mind in differences languange;sometimes in
english, indonesia, and bataknese..i do not now why my brain responses like that.

when i am annoying by something, batak languange will come up, or if i do silly things. when i think about a defenition, tailoring it in english and indonesia
in my mind. when i count something, some time i use english and other times i use
indonesia languange. when i am dreaming,i speak in english, but another time
speak in the others langunges. or...when I am shocked by something, I often
use indonesia langunge, i.e, when I was playing football, some time I say;
wuih...mantap kali golnya, brengsek!! and immediately all of my friends saw me weirdly....and said, what???.or if i saw a couple was kissing so looong,
some time i said, syaitan, buset dah...
I hope i have defined something......

dorus rijkerplein 164, 5th floor. ISS hostel, the Hague..
kingkong, the dawn, oct 11, 07

Selasa, 09 Oktober 2007

division of labour, social differentition and inequalitiy

Division of labour, social differentiation and inequality can be seen briefly from what Karl Marx said as class analysis. Each social class is determined by what they have which is called by neo Marxism as economic determinism. By Marx, simply each society can be divided to proletariat class having merely “their hands to work” and bourgeois class having production tools and benefiting from proletariat class working.

The Inequality related to the classes can be described from the result of production process. What the bourgeois class gets from the production process is profit of the production which is not only bigger, but also oppressed the other class, while working class or proletariat just reaches wage or salary regulated by bourgeois. This old concept describing class relation is still exist in many developing countries i.e. situation in many big oil palm plantations in Indonesia.

The oil palm plantation built by Dutch Government colonial in the age of eighties in Indonesia (Hindia Netherland) dropped labour from the crowded island, Java, to several islands called transmigration project. They became workers in many plantations called by term of Marx as proletariat; receiving wage every month, they had no access to be the owner of land and the plantation and or to the real profits of the plantation as the owner had. It is happen to every generation of them where I was seeing and familiar with.

assigment for erhard class.

Senin, 08 Oktober 2007

social differentiation

structural difrentiation ;
a concept associated with EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES of history and with structural functionalism. Societies are seen as moving from the simple to the complex via a process of social change based on structural differentiation.

the process may be imangined, in its simple form, asn an amoeba dividing, redividing again. So called simple societies are tribal societies where everithing happens within and through the kinship system. in modern complex societies there are separate institutions of education, work, government, religion, and so forth, while the family now has more spesific and limited roles such as early socialization. differentiation involves the increasing specialization of different subsystem and institution within the society.

Talcot parsons sees the process as involving three stages; a process of differentiation; a process of adaptation and reintegration; and finaly the establishment of a more generela system of values whics holds the more complex society to adapt to its physical and social environment. The basic idea of evolutinary can be found in herbert spencer,1876-1933, and the most general expoused by parsons.

evolutionary theories has been criticized by sociologist during the past two decades; such as anthony giddens; said; the society is not as simple at all.

.......dictionary of sociology, oxford, gordon marshall, 1998.

Rabu, 26 September 2007

Defining the indefinable?

Defining the indefinable?
Louk Box*

Try to define the notion of development and one redefines one’s own ideals. Development then means no more than one’s wish list. Yet we know that development-in-practice has meant ever so many unexpected consequences, failures or misunderstandings. How come?
This was the exact question that we discussed in the working groups during week 1 of the course – and the question that formed the base of the lecture on ‘Theorising Development’. The working groups had done their homework, and made it clear that the notion of development is an ambiguous and multi-facetted one. Each period in (European) history appears to have formed its own conception of ‘good change’ as Robert Chambers has called it. Aristotle, we were reminded, had a view on reform which stressed class or even caste differences: for the citizenry-elite he pleaded one strategy, for the non-citizen-slaves he recommended something else. During the industrial revolution, ‘development’ came to mean as much as the promotion of industrial capitalism on the one hand, and dealing with the victims of capitalism on the other hand. After World War II, Alan Thomas and Jan Nederveen Pieterse stress the ‘modernization’ meaning of development, followed by alternative approaches stressing inequality and human development.
And now, where do we stand? According to Thomas and Pieterse different schools of thought compete for our attention. On the one hand there are the Post-Developmentalists, rejecting the very notion of development as a hoax, or at least the value of development theories (as irrelevant). They form a curious lot, those Post-developmentalists: social constructivists who relativise the notion of development, theoretical anarchists like Easterly who disqualify past theories as ineffective, or political anarchists who reject the State as a prime mover in social development. Are we then left with nothing at all?
Perhaps not. Perhaps there are theories of the Middle Range (as Robert Merton called them) which can help us understand certain phenomena associated with globalisation. Perhaps some of the Golden Oldies of yesteryear can help us interpret some macro-phenomena like increasing inequalities among emerging social classes in the Global South and the North. Take Karl Polanyi, author of The Great Transformation and briefly mentioned by Alan Thomas. Or perhaps Hardt & Negri, the authors of the most unreadable book of the year 2000, Empire – arguing that a new global social structure is emerging, which sets its own dynamic. And finally, there is the argument by Kofi Annan, reflected in the Millennium Declaration that we need to move beyond traditional development cooperation towards new forms of international commitment and solidarity.
There remains, in other words, enough to wonder about in this curious world called Development Studies, provided we clearly contextualise our notion of development. If we do so, even defining the indefinable becomes possible.

* Column written for participants of the ISS General Course Development Theories and Strategies (24 9 2007)

Kamis, 13 September 2007

international criminal court

International Criminal Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •
Jump to: navigation, search


The official logo of the ICC
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.[1] The court came into being on July 1, 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force[2] — and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[3]
As of August 2007, 104 states are members of the Court; Japan will become the 105th state party on 1 October 2007.[4] A further 41 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[5] However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.
The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[6] The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[7][8] Primary responsibility to punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.
To date, the Court has opened investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur.[9] The Court has issued eight arrest warrants[10] and one suspect, Thomas Lubanga, is in custody, awaiting trial.[11]
The official seat of the ICC is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[12] The Court is separate from, and should not be confused with, the International Court of Justice (often referred to as the “World Court”), which is the United Nations organ that settles disputes between nations.
"International Criminal Court" is sometimes abbreviated as ICCt to distinguish it from several other organizations abbreviated as ICC. However, the more common abbreviation "ICC" is
History
[edit] Early development
In 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the United Nations General Assembly recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during World War II.[13] At the request of the General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two draft statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[14]
A. N. R. Robinson, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, revived the idea during the forty-fourth session of the General Assembly in 1989, proposing the creation of a permanent international court to deal with the international drug trade.[14][15] While work began on a draft statute, the international community established ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia[16] and Rwanda,[17] further highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court.[18]
[edit] Adoption and entry into force of the Rome Statute
Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome, Italy, in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On July 17, 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, the People's Republic of China, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.[19]
The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on April 11, 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached 60.[2] The Statute legally came into force on July 1, 2002,[2] and the Court can only prosecute crimes committed after that date.[3]
The first bench of 18 judges was elected by an Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the Court on March 11, 2003.[20] The Court issued its first arrest warrants on 8 July 2005,[21] and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.[22]
[edit] Membership


World map of ICC member states, as of August 2007
Main article: States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
As of August 2007, 104 countries have ratified or acceded to the court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and roughly half the countries in Africa.[23][5]
Japan will become a state party on 1 October 2007, bringing the total number to 105.[4] A further 41 states have signed but not ratified the treaty;[5] the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.[24] In 2002, two of these states, the United States and Israel, "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become States Parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[5][25][26]
See also: United States and the International Criminal Court
[edit] Jurisdiction
[edit] Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the Court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression: it provides that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.[1]
Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the Court's limited resources.[13] India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes, but this move was also defeated.[27]
Article 123 of the Rome Statute provides that a Review Conference shall be convened in 2009, and that this conference may review the list of crimes contained in Article 5.[28] The final resolution on adoption of the Rome Statute specifically recommended that terrorism and drug trafficking be reconsidered at this conference.[29]
[edit] Territorial jurisdiction
During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[30] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under certain limited circumstances, namely:
1. Where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
2. Where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
3. Where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[6]
[edit] Temporal jurisdiction
The Court's jurisdiction does not apply retroactively: it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force). Where a state becomes party to the Rome Statute after that date, the Court can exercise jurisdiction automatically with respect to crimes committed after the statute enters into force for that state.[3]
[edit] Complementarity
The Court is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:
‘(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.’[7]
Article 20, paragraph 3, specifies that, if a person has already been tried by another court, the ICC cannot try them again for the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:
‘(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.’[8]

The Court consists of four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.[31]
[edit] Presidency
The Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the Court (apart from the Office of the Prosecutor).[32] It comprises the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents — three judges of the Court who are elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges for a maximum of two three-year terms.[33] The current President of the Court is Philippe Kirsch.[31] Akua Kuenyehia is First Vice-President and RenĂ© Blattmann is Second Vice-President.[31] All three were elected to their current terms on 11 March 2006.[32]
[edit] Judicial Divisions
Main article: Judges of the International Criminal Court
The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three divisions — the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division — which carry out the judicial functions of the Court.[34]
Judges are elected to the Court by the Assembly of States Parties.[34] They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election.[34] All judges must be nationals of States Parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state.[35] They must be “persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices”.[35]
The Pre-Trial Division (which comprises the First Vice President and six other judges)[34] confirms indictments and issues international arrest warrants. The Trial Division (the Second Vice President and five other judges) presides over trials. Decisions of the Pre-Trial and Trial Divisions may be appealed to the Appeals Division (the President and four other judges). Judges are assigned to divisions according to their qualifications and experience.[31]
[edit] Office of the Prosecutor
The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions.[36] It is headed by the Prosecutor, who is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors.[31] The Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently;[37] as such, no member of the Office may seek or act on instructions from any external source, such as states, international organisations, non-governmental organisations or individuals.[36]
The current Prosecutor is Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, who was elected by the Assembly of States Parties on 21 April 2003[38] for a term of nine years.[36]
[edit] Registry
The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court.[39] This includes, among other things, “the administration of legal aid matters, court management, victims and witnesses matters, defence counsel, detention unit, and the traditional services provided by administrations in international organisations, such as finance, translation, building management, procurement and personnel”.[39]
The Registry is headed by the Registrar, who is elected by the judges to a five-year term.[31] The current Registrar is Bruno Cathala.[31]
[edit] Rights of the accused
The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,[40] and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations.[41] These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against him or her; the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf.
In order to ensure “equality of arms” between defence and prosecution teams, the ICC has established an independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD) to provide logistical support, advice and information to defendants and their counsel.[42][43] The OPCD also helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation.[44]
[edit] Victim participation and reparations
The Rome Statute provides for victim participation in the Court's proceedings.[45][46] Article 43(6) establishes a Victims and Witnesses Unit to provide "protective measures and security arrangements, counseling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses."[47] Article 68 sets out procedures for the "Protection of the victims and witnesses and their participation in the proceedings."[48] The Court has also established an Office of Public Counsel for Victims, to provide support and assistance to victims and their legal representatives.[11]
Article 78 of the Rome Statute establishes a Trust Fund to make financial reparations to victims and their families.[49]
[edit] Relationship with the United Nations


The United Nations Security Council may refer situations to the ICC
Unlike the International Court of Justice, the ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations. Nonetheless, the Rome Statute grants the UN a clear role in relation to the Court. The Security Council may refer to the Court situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court's jurisdiction (as it did in relation to the situation in Darfur, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as Sudan is not a state party). Article 16 of the Rome Statute also allows the Security Council to require the Court to defer from investigating a case for a period of 12 months.[50] Such a deferral may be renewed indefinitely by the Security Council.
The Court cooperates with the UN in many different areas, including the exchange of information and logistical support.[51] The Court reports to the UN each year on its activities,[51][52] and some meetings of the Court's governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, are held at UN facilities. The relationship between the Court and the UN is governed by a “Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations”.[53][54]
The ICC's interim premises in The Hague
[edit] Headquarters and detention unit
As of 29 September 2006, the ICC’s staff consisted of 444 persons from 74 states.[11] The official seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[12][55]
The Court is currently housed in interim premises on the eastern edge of The Hague.[56] A number of options are being considered for the Court's permanent headquarters; the Court is currently focusing on a proposal to construct a facility in Alexanderkazerne, on a site currently used as a Dutch army barracks near a beach on the north of The Hague.[56][57]
The ICC currently has twelve detention cells in Scheveningen, a Dutch prison near The Hague.[58] Suspects held by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are held in the same prison and share some facilities, like the fitness room, but have no contact with suspects held by the ICC.[58] The detention unit is close to the ICC's proposed permanent headquarters in Alexanderkazerne.[59]
The ICC's detention unit currently houses two suspects: Thomas Lubanga and former Liberian President Charles Taylor.[11][60] Taylor is being tried under the mandate and auspices of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, but his trial is being held at the ICC's facilities in the Hague because of political and security concerns about holding the trial in Freetown.[61]
[edit] Situations before the Court
Summary of investigations and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court (as of 1 August 2007)
Situation Referral
(date) Investigation
opened Arrest warrants
issued Arrest
made Trial
commenced Verdict Comments
Northern Uganda
Government of Uganda
(December 2003) July 2004 Joseph Kony

Vincent Otti

Raska Lukwiya
Died 12 August 2006

Okot Odhiambo

Dominic Ongwen

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Government of the DRC
(March 2004) June 2004 Thomas Lubanga
17 March 2006

Central African Republic (CAR)
Government of the CAR
(December 2004) May 2007
Darfur, Sudan
UN Security Council
(March 2005) June 2005 Ahmed Haroun

Ali Kushayb

Main article: Cases before the International Criminal Court
As of 1 February 2006, the Office of the Prosecutor had received 1732 communications about alleged crimes in 139 countries.[62] After initial review, however, 80% of these communications were found to be “manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Court”.[62] The Prosecutor has so far opened investigations into just four situations: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Darfur.[9]
[edit] Uganda
In December 2003, the government of Uganda, a state party, referred to the Prosecutor the situation concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda.[63] On 8 July 2005, the Court issued its first arrest warrants for the Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and LRA commanders Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo, and Dominic Ongwen.[21] The LRA's leaders have repeatedly demanded immunity from ICC prosecution in return for an end to the insurgency,[64] and the government of Uganda has promised not to turn them over to the ICC if they sign a peace deal.[64]
[edit] Democratic Republic of Congo
In March 2004, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo, a state party, referred to the Prosecutor “the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court allegedly committed anywhere in the territory of the DRC since the entry into force of the Rome Statute, on 1 July 2002.”[65][66] On 17 March 2006, Thomas Lubanga, former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots militia in Ituri, became the first person to be arrested under a warrant issued by the court, for allegedly “conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities”.[67]
[edit] Central African Republic
In December 2004, the government of the Central African Republic, a state party, referred to the Prosecutor “the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed anywhere on the territory of the Central African Republic since 1 July 2002, the date of entry into force of the Rome Statute.”[68] On 22 May 2007, the Prosecutor announced his decision to open an investigation,[69][70] focusing on allegations of killing and rape in 2002 and 2003, a period of intense fighting between government and rebel forces.[71]
[edit] Darfur, Sudan
On 31 March 2005, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1593, referring “the situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002” to the Prosecutor.[72] In February 2007 the Prosecutor announced that two men — Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb — had been identified as key suspects, accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.[73] On 2 May 2007, the Court issued arrest warrants for the two men.[74] However, Sudan says the court has no jurisdiction over this matter,[73] and refuses to hand over the suspects.[74]
[edit] Other situations
On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter answering complaints connected with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[75] He noted that the Court's jurisdiction in Iraq was limited to the actions of nationals of States Parties, and that he did not have authority to consider complaints about the legality of the invasion. He concluded that the available information constituted a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of instances of wilful killing and/or inhuman treatment had occurred, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of States Parties in Iraq did not appear to meet the gravity threshold required for an ICC investigation.[11]
See also: The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
[edit] Criticisms of the Court
[edit] Potential for politically motivated prosecutions
Opponents of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[76] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.[77]
[edit] Lack of due process
According to the Heritage Foundation, “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”[26]
However, Human Rights Watch argues that “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including “presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy”.[78] According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), “when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.”[79]
[edit] Inequality of arms between prosecution and defence
Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they have been given a smaller budget than the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements have been slow to arrive.[80]
[edit] Interference with national reconciliation processes
In the past, governments have granted amnesty to human rights abusers as part of agreements to end conflict. It is sometimes argued that these amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes. By denying states the right to offer amnesty to human rights abusers, the International Criminal Court may make it more difficult to negotiate an end to conflict and a transition to democracy. Czech politician Marek Benda argues that “[t]he ICC as a deterrent will in our view only mean the worst dictators will try to retain power at all costs.”[81] For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda.[82][83]
However, the United Nations[84] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[85] maintain that granting amnesty to those accused of war crimes and other serious crimes is a violation of international law. In any case, Article 16 of the Rome Statute allows the Security Council to prevent the Court from investigating or prosecuting a case,[50] and Article 53 allows the Prosecutor the discretion not to initiate an investigation if he or she believes that “an investigation would not serve the interests of justice”.[86]
[edit] Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
As noted above, some states were unhappy about the exclusion of terrorism, drug trafficking and the use of weapons of mass destruction from the Court's jurisdiction. The government of India, for example, expressed concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community.”[27]
Other commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of ‘war crimes’ goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.[87]

Saurlin, reachable at:
saurlin@gmail.com
ma07071@iss.nl

Minggu, 19 Agustus 2007

Military repression against HKBP

January 25, 1993 Vol.5, No.3
INDONESIA:
MILITARY REPRESSION AGAINST THE BATAK CHURCH

Summary

In late November 1992, a long-simmering conflict broke out in the open over the leadership of the Batak
Protestant Christian Congregation (Huria Kristen Batak Protestan or HKBP) in north Sumatra. The head of
the congregation is known as ephorus, roughly equivalent to "archbishop." In December, the North Sumatra
branch of Indonesia's internal security agency, BAKORSTANASDA, intervened on one side of the conflict
and issued a decree appointing its own choice for ephorus, a man who was a convicted embezzler. In the
uproar and protests that followed, dozens of church members were arbitrarily detained, houses were
searched without warrants, and press coverage of the situation was banned. As of January 18, 1993, some
sixty people were believed to be in detention. Asia Watch called on the Indonesian government to release all
those arbitrarily detained, to lift restrictions on freedom of expression and to allow members of HKBP full
freedom of association to choose their leadership without government interference.

Background to Intervention

The Toba clan of the Batak ethnic group in north Sumatra is largely Protestant, and the church is
organized into a congregation, the HKBP, of some two million members, headed by an ephorus and a
governing Central Council. The ephorus is elected for a six-year term. Between November 23 and 28, 1992,
the HKBP, which has a history of social activism, convened its 51st Synod in Sipoholon, Tarutung, North
Sumatra, at which the election of an ephorus was to take place. Rev. Dr. S.A.E. Nababan, the current
ephorus elected in 1986, was being challenged by a faction within the HKBP close to the army. That faction
was headed by the Secretary-General of the HKBP, one Rev. Simorangkir.

The synod was marked by demonstrations and disruptions. On the final night of the synod,
November 28, at about 10 p.m., the session was in disarray, with Simorangkir's faction noisily claiming that
Nababan was trying to block discussion of three items. There had been no election. Nababan suspended
proceedings as an ephorus is authorized to do under HKBP's rules of governance; an army officer, Lt. Col.
Paris Ginting, then appeared and ordered Nababan to leave the room.



Asia Watch 2 January 25, 1993
After his departure, a rump session of the Central Council was held with Ginting; Colonel Daniel
Toding, the regional military commander (DANREM 023); and Simorangkir, among others. Participants at
the meeting told the press that the main subject of discussion was the security problems caused by the
fractious synod.1

Later on, in the early hours of November 29, Simorangkir, claiming a mandate from the Central
Council, called a general meeting of the synod, without the knowledge of Nababan, and read out a typed
statement. Purporting to be the decision of the meeting the night before, it announced the formation of a
caretaker council with Simorangkir himself as acting ephorus, on the utterly false grounds that Nababan had
resigned for health reasons. Participants in that meeting, however, said no such decision had been reached or
even discussed, and suggested the statement must have been prepared long in advance.2 Members of the
synod rejected Simorangkir's coup attempt and overwhelmingly voted to retain Nababan. Simorangkir then
claimed that the HKBP had turned the leadership question over to the Indonesian government to resolve.
Neither Simorangkir nor HKBP, however, had any authority to act without the agreement of the ephorus,
i.e. Nababan.

As the meeting degenerated into a mass protest largely directed against Simorangkir, Colonel
Toding, who was present throughout, ordered his men to arrest unruly members. He also, however,
cancelled Simorangkir's "decision" to make himself acting ephorus and the meeting broke up.

The December 23 Decree

Over the following weeks, tension remained high, and the HKBP headquarters in the village of
Pearaja, Tarutung, was surrounded by the military. On December 23, Major General R. Pramono, the
regional commander of BAKORSTANASDA, who is also the regional military commander, issued a decree
appointing a member of the Simorangkir faction, Dr. S.M. Siahaan, as acting ephorus, effective December
31. Siahaan, former dean of the education faculty of the respected Nommensen University in North
Sumatra, had been convicted of corruption in 1976 for embezzling university funds and sentenced to six
months in prison; he was also accused of taking funds from HKBP's Education Foundation in
Pematangsiantar, North Sumatra.3

The BAKORSTANASDA decree (appendix 1) claimed the intervention was necessary on national
security grounds given the upcoming session in March 1993 of the People's Consultative Assembly which is
expected to re-elect President Suharto. It cited two other decrees giving the government responsibility to
settle the HKBP dispute. One was a BAKORSTANASDA decree dated February 27, 1991; the second was
a Ministry of Religious Affairs decree dated October 21, 1992, meaning the military had decided to
intervene long before the synod was ever convened. The December 23, 1992 decree also cited a report from
the military commander, Colonel Toding, on the failure of the synod to elect a new ephorus, and a report by
the Committee of the 51st Synod about matters the synod was unable to resolve. The latter report was

1 "Sinode `Godang' HKBP Berakhir", Suara Pembaruan, November 29, 1992.
2 Ibid.
3 "Penunjukan Pj. Ephorus HKBP Undang Protes," Sinar Pagi, December 29, 1992.



Asia Watch 3 January 25, 1993
prepared by Simorangkir. The decree also called for a special synod to be convened, in cooperation with
BAKORSTANASDA, no later than mid-February 1993 to elect new officials for HKBP.

Outrage over the BAKORSTANASDA intervention was widespread and instantaneous. HKBP
filed a law suit against the regional military commander and BAKORSTANASDA head, General Pramono.
(On January 11, the court ruled in favor of HKBP.) Some 4,000 HKBP members marched to the provincial
parliament in Medan on December 28, demanding the decree be revoked. Others gathered at the governor's
mansion, and still others marched to the regional military headquarters. Security forces lined their route. A
major Jakarta newspaper, Suara Pembaruan, wondered aloud whether BAKORSTANASDA had not gone
too far and said the action constituted unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of the church.4

Curiously, the Interior Minister, General Rudini, and a senior minister close to President Suharto,
Admiral Sudomo, the Coordinating Minister for Political Affairs and Security, publicly opposed the
BAKORSTANASDA action, both claiming that they joined with church leaders in supporting Rev.
Nababan. They thus stood in direct opposition to Commander of the Armed Forces, General Try Sutrisno,
who backed General Pramono.5

On December 31, the day that Dr. Siahaan was to be inaugurated, thousands of HKBP members
occupied the church at HKBP headquarters in Pearaja to prevent the ceremony from taking place. There
were also demonstrations in Jakarta. The occupation of the church, as well as other protests throughout the
Toba Batak area of North Sumatra, continued for the next two weeks.

Military Action Against HKBP

On January 9, the Indonesian government issued a decree banning all individuals and organizations
from commenting on the HKBP crisis. By the terms of the decree, only Sudomo, the Coordinating Minister
for Political Affairs and Security, and General Pramono, the regional military commander, had the authority
to make public statements on the issue. By this time, Sudomo had clearly changed his stance, telling the
press that the BAKORSTANASDA move against HKBP was "justified and not an act of interference."6

This clear violation of freedom of expression proved to be the prelude to a military crackdown
which began on January 15, 1993.7 Eight church members staying in the home of Rev. J.A.U. Dolakseribu
were seized by the army and taken to an undisclosed location. Rev. Daulat Sitorus, another minister who
went to look for the eight was also seized. The house of the chief judge of the North Sumatra High Court,
Judge Lintong Oloan Siahaan, who agreed to hear the HKBP law suit, was reportedly stoned and
vandalized.


4
"Penunjukan Pejabat Ephorus HKBP," Suara Pembaruan, December 28, 1992.

5
"Sudomo, Try seek solution to row over bishop's appointment," Jakarta Post, December 31, 1992; "State Should
Stay Out of Church's Conflict: Rudini,"Jakarta Post, January 2, 1993.

6
"Sudomo bans all comments on church conflict," Jakarta Post, January 11, 1993.

7
Isolated arrests had taken place before: a Mr. Pangaribuan was arrested on January 6 and reportedly beaten in
Balige, North Tapanuli, and Barita Simanjuntak was arrested on January 13. Both were released.



Asia Watch 4 January 25, 1993
On January 16, at about 7 a.m., some 100 troops consisting of soldiers from the Bukit Barisan
command, police, and military police, charged the occupied church, injuring at least three ministers and one
lay person in the process. Two hours later, Rev. Nelson Siregar, the director of HKBP's community
development program, and Rev. W.T. Simarmata, director of its education department, were summoned by
the local military commander. They were later arrested and transported 300 km to the provincial capital,
Medan, where they were held in the military headquarters, Gaperta. Thirty-six students were also detained,
all but 10 of whom were released the next day.

On Sunday, January 17, a human rights lawyer, Laudin Napitupulu, from the Legal Aid
Foundation's Medan office, was detained together with a HKBP minister, Rev. Togar Hasugian, and seven
students and lay members. All were arrested at the house of a minister in the village of Aek Siancimun by
police from the North Tapanuli command (POLRES). On the same day, about 30 police officers arrived at
the house of Rev. Nababan, the HKBP ephorus, where many protestors had gathered. About 25 people,
mostly students, were taken away in military vehicles.

On Monday, January 18, the head of HKBP's youth program, Rev. J.A.U. Dolakseribu (whose
house had been stormed by police three days earlier) was arrested after performing a wedding service at the
HKBP church on Jalan Sudirman, Medan.

As of January 18, some 60 HKBP members, including 43 students, were believed under arrest.
Those detained in Gaperta, Medan were denied visits from their families, in violation of Indonesia's own
Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The action against HKBP is taking place against the backdrop of heightened security measures
more generally as the "election" of President Suharto approaches in March and of a fears of increased
religious polarization between Indonesia's tiny Christian minority and the Muslim majority. A spate of
attacks on Christian churches took place in November 1992 by Muslim groups fearful of "Christianization."

But tensions within the Batak church have been going on for years and have little to do with recent
political developments. There is no justification for the action taken by BAKORSTANASDA against the
church leadership. Asia Watch calls on the Indonesian government to release immediately and
unconditionally all those arbitrarily arrested for peaceful protest in connection with the protests over
BAKORSTANASDA intervention in HKBP's affairs, including Rev. Dolakseribu, Sakti Pakpahan, Hendrik
Siagian, Rev. WTP Simarmata, Dr. Tumpak Tobing, and Haposan Tobing. It notes the action taken by
BAKORSTANASDA to appoint an ephorus against the wishes of the congregation was in violation of the
internationally-recognized right to freedom of religion and association. The arrest of peaceful protestors was
a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Finally, Asia Watch calls for disciplinary action to be
taken against Major General Pramono, the man responsible for the human rights abuses cited in this
statement. General Pramono was also responsible for atrocities committed during the counterinsurgency
campaign in Aceh in 1990-91.







Asia Watch 5 January 25, 1993

****

For More Information

Sidney Jones (212) 972-8400
(718) 398-4186

Asia Watch is an independent organization created in 1985 to monitor and promote internationally
recognized human rights in Asia. The Chair is Jack Greenberg, the Vice Chairs are Harriet Rabb and
Orville Schell, and the Executive Director is Sidney Jones.

Asia Watch is a division Human Rights Watch, which also includes Africa Watch, Americas Watch, Helsinki
Watch and Middle East Watch. The Chair of Human Rights Watch is Robert L. Bernstein and the Vice
Chair is Adrian DeWind. Aryeh Neier is Executive Director; Kenneth Roth, Deputy Director; Holly
Burkhalter, Washington Director; Susan Osnos, Press Director.

Selasa, 26 Juni 2007

Warga berharap sinode agung bisa terwujud

WARGA HKBP BERHARAP SINODE AGUNG HKBP BISA TERWUJUD
MEDAN (SiaR, 13/10/98),"
"Bunyi poster tersebut merupakan aspirasi seluruh warga HKBP", demikian diungkapkan oleh Pdt. SMP Hutasoit, pelaksana tugas Sekjen HKBP SSA-AP usai kebaktian Minggu (11/10) lalu, yang diadakan di gereja HKBP Pearaja, Tarutung.
Memang, sejak Jumat (9/10) lalu warga HKBP SSA-AP telah memasuki kembali Kantor Pusat HKBP yang pada tanggal 16 Januari 1993 telah diambil alih kelompok SSA-Tiara pimpinan Pdt PWT Simanjuntak.
"Jadi kami jelas tidak merebut, tetapi memasuki kembali hak-hak kami yang selama ini dirampas," tegas warga jemaat. Ribuan warga jemaat yang mengikuti kebktian Minggu itu mengharapkan agar penyelenggaraan Sinode Godang HKBP dapat dilaksanakan secara bersama dengan pihak SAI Tiara.
"Pihak SAI Tiara jangan lagi menunda-nunda dengan berbagai dalih," tegas seorang warga jemaat yang mengaku sangat terharu ketika memasuki kompleks Kantor Pusat HKBP tersebut.
Bagi warga SSA-AP, bukan asset kantor yang terpenting, tetapi terutama adalah keutuhan HKBP. "Bagi kami, asset hanya sekedar alat, bukan tujuan akhir. Yang terutama adalah untuk mendesak pisak SAI Tiara agar sesegera mungkin mau berunding dengan adil", tegas warga jemaat lagi. Oleh karena warga SSA-AP mengharapkan agar "Pernyataan kesepakatan" yang diajukan mereka dapat segera ditandatangani pihak SAI Tiara, yaitu Pdt. PWT Simanjuntak.
Menurut salah seorang anggota Tim 18 dari SSA-AP, Pdt. STP Siahaan, pernyataan kesepakatan semestinya sudah harus ditandatangani pada 7 Oktober lalu. Tapi pihak SAI Tiara sampai saat ini selalu mengemukakan berbagai dalih sehingga belum mau menandatangani. Ditambahkan oleh Pdt. Siahaan, bahwa pihak PWT Simanjuntak sampai saat ini belum memberikan komitmen secara tertulis tentang kesediaan mereka melakukan Sinode Godang bersama.
Sementara itu Sekjen SAI Tiara, Pdt SM Siahaan bertekad akan merebut kembali Kompleks Kantor Pusat HKBP yang telah diambilalih pihak SSA-AP. "Kita akan rebut kantor HKBP dalam waktu yang sesingkat-singkatnya," ujar Pdt. SM Siahaan di gejereja HKBP Kota Tarutung, 11/10/98, sebagaimana dikutip Harian SIB.
Sementara itu di Medan, telah terjadi bentrokan antar warga SSA-AP dengan SAI Tiara di gereja HKBP Jl Mawar Raya, Helvetia pada Minggu siang. Selama ini gereja HKBP Helvetia diduduki oleh SAI Tiara, namun bulan Juni lalu berhasil diambil lagi kelompok SSA-AP. Puluhan warga SAI Tiara pada hari Minggu mencoba mengambilalih gereja tersebut, namun niat mereka berhasil digagalkan. Dalam peristiwa tersebut, jatuh beberapa korban luka-luka, baik dari kelompok SSA-AP maupun SAI Tiara.***
---------- SiaR WEBSITE: http://apchr.murdoch.edu.au/minihub/siarlist

SSA kuasai pearaja

HKBP SSA-AP KUASAI KEMBALI KANTOR PUSAT HKBP DI PAERAJA, TARUTUNG
MEDAN (SiaR, 11/10/98), Setelah berjuang kurang lebih 6 tahun, HKBP SSA-AP (Setia Sampai Akhir terhadap Peraturan & Aturan) pimpinan Ephorus Pendeta SAE Nababan, akhirnya berhasil merebut kembali Kantor Pusat HKBP dan Kompleks Perumahan HKBP di Paeraja, Tarutung, Tapanuli Utara.
Pengambilahan kembali kantor Pusat HKBP Paeraja yang sejak 16 Januari 1993 dikuasai kelompok SAI Tiara pimpinan Pendeta PWT Simanjuntak, Dilakukan oleh mahasiswa, pemuda serta warga jemaat yang tergabung dalam Forum Keprihatinan Warga (FKW) Jumat (9/10) lalu sekitar pukul 06.30 WIB.
Mahasiswa, pemuda dan unsur FKW yang berjumlah 130 orang, berhasil mengusir Satgas SAI Tiara yang berjumlah sekitar 35 orang. Baku hantam tak terhindarkan. Ada 5 orang dari Satgas SAI Tiara yang berhasil ditangkap Kelompok SSA-AP. Namun seorang berhasil melarikan diri. Sedang 4 orang langsung diserahkan ke RSU Tarutung, mereka yaitu: Darwin Napitupulu (warga Katolik asal Kutacane), Jan Henry Tampubolon (GKPP Kutacane), Guru Afdol Berton Silaban (Guru Jemaat HKBP Ramonia) dan Bintang Pane (Pelajar STM HKI Tarutung).
Pukul8.15 WIB ratusan Satgas SAI Tiara mencoba merebut kembali Kantor Pusat HKBP, banyak di antara anggota Satgas SAI Tiara yang mengenakan topeng a la Ninja Jepang. Aksi saling melempar batu dan bom molotov tak terhindarkan. Tidak berselang lama, datang puluhan aparat keamanan sehingga pertempuran yang lebih seru dapat diredam.
Pada Sabtu (10/10) lalu menjelang subuh dini hari, sekitar pukul 04.00 WIB, anggota Satgas SAI Tiara melakukan penyerbuan kembali. Namun penyerbuan tersebut dapat lagi dipatahkan pihak SSA-AP. Pukul 05.30 WIB, sekitar 500 anggota Satgas SAI-Tiara melakukan penyerbuan kembali. Pada serbuan kali ini, mereka berhasil menerobos penjagaan SSA-AP. Tapi ketika hendak mendekati Gedung Kantor Pusat HKPB, kelompok SSA-AP berhasil menghalau Satgas SAI Tiara.
Aksi pengambilalihan Kantor Pusat HKBP di Paeraja, tidak saja menimbulkan korban luka-luka pada keduabelah pihak, namun juga meminta korban nyawa dari pihak SAI-Tiara. Seorang pendeta SAI Tiara yaitu Pendeta Mangontang Rajagukguk pada hari pertama pengambilalihan yang dilakukan kelompok SSA-AP, mengalami luka bacok. Pendeta Mangontang Rajagukguk menghembuskan napasnya pukul 09.00 WIB di RSU Tarutung. Sebuah sumber di Kantor (sementara) HKBP SSA-AP di Pematang Siantar menyebutkan bahwa tewasnya Pdt. Mangontang Radjagukguk tidak disebabkan luka bacokan.
"Tapi Mangontang tewas karena ketika melarikan diri, diduga dia melompat ke jurang terjal yang terletak persis di belakang rumah yang selama ini didiami Pendeta PWT Simanjuntak," ujar sumber tersebut.
Pihak SSA-AP sendiri mengatakan, bahwa hingga kini, jumlah warga jemaat yang bergabung dengan mahasiswa, pemuda dan FKW sudah berjumlah sekitar 600 orang. Mereka bernyanyi, bersekutu dan mengadakan kebaktian bersama.
Kisruh di tubuh HKBP, sebuah gereja protestan tertua di Indonesia yang mempunyai jemaat sekitar 2,5 juta itu, bermula ketika pada tahun 1992 muncul Skep (Surat Keputusan) Bakorstanasda Sumbagut No 3/Stada/XII/1992 tentang Penunjukan Pejabat Ephorus HKBP yang ditandatangani oleh Ketua Bakorstanasda Sumbagut Mayjen TNI R Pramono. Sudah tentu munculnya Skep Bakorstanasda Sumbagut tersebut mengundang tanda tanya besar. Soalnya selama 130 tahun lebih, baru kali itulah terjadi di tubuh HKBP bahwa instansi di luar gereja mengeluarkan Skep pengangkatan pejabat Ephorus.
Selain melecehkan AD/ART HKBP, Skep itu juga akhirnya menimbulkan rentetan tindak kekerasan seperti teror, intimidasi, penangkapan secara sewenang-wenang dan penganiayaan yang harus dialami warga jemaat dan pendeta yang menolak campur tangan militer tersebut.
Pihak yang menolak Skep, belakang dikenal dengan sebutan HKBP SSA-AP di bawah pimpinan Ephorus Pendeta SAE Nababan. Sedang pihak yang menerima Skep Bakorstanasda kemudian dikenal sebagai HKBP SAI Tiara (Sinode Agung Istimewa yang dilaksanakan di Hotel Tiara Medan dibawah kawalan ketat pihak militer). Sejak itu, terjadi bentrok fisik yang berdarah-darah. Dari catatan yang ada, tercatat 5 orang tewas dalam pertikaian tersebut, 2 orang dari kelompok SAI Tiara, dan 3 orang dari SSA-AP. Korban luka fisik dan harta, jangan tanya lagi.
Sampai akhirnya pada September terbetik kabar bahwa antara SSA-AP dan SAI Tiara akan terjadi perdamaian. Maklum, bulan Oktober ini, masa jabatan SAE Nababan dan PWT Simanjuntak sama-sama akan habis. Untuk itu ada rencana membuat Sinode Agung (SI) bersama. Menurut sebuah sumber, pihak SSA-AP menginginkan Panitia SI merupakan gabungan dari kedua kubu. Mereka melaksanakan SI dan memilih fungsionaris yang baru. Setelah terbentuk fungsionaris baru, kemudian bisa diadakan Sinoder Kerja atau Istimewa untuk meminta pertanggungjawaban PWT Simanjuntak dan SAE Nababan.
Pihak SAI Tiara mengusulkan agar pada waktu SI, baik SAE Nababan maupun PWT Simanjuntak mempertanggungjawabkan dihadapan masing-masing kelompoknya. Baru setelah itu dibentuk panitia SI dan memilih fungsionaris baru.
Pihak SAE Nababan kabarnya tidak setuju dengan usulan SAI Tiara, karena dengan demikian kesalahan kelompok SAI Tiara yang menerima Skep Bakorstanasda Sumbagut serta ekses-ekses yang ditimbulkan, seolah menguap begitu saja. Pihak SSA-AP tetap menuntut, walau rekonsialisasi terjadi dengan pihak SAI Tiara, namun tuntutan hukum berjalan terus. Karena terjadi deadlock, maka kelompok SSA-AP, yang dimotori mahasiswa, pemuda dan unsur FKW akhirnya mengambilalih kembali Kompleks Kantor Pusat HKBP Paeraja, Tarutung.***
---------- SiaR WEBSITE: http://apchr.murdoch.edu.au/minihub/siarlist