-3- III. Komnas HAM‘s Comment on List of issues in relation to the initial report of Indonesia (CCPR/C/IDN/1), adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (11–28 March 2013) Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented, right to an effective remedy (art. 2) 3. As mentioned in the previous submission, Komnas HAM is aware that the Government Regulation No. 3 of 2002 makes the remedies available for victims of gross violations of human rights in the forms of restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation. The Commission, however, is of the view that the Government Regulation No. 3 of 2002 is not effective based on the following reasons: a) the discontinue investigation process by the Attorney General with regard to cases with indication of gross human rights violations although the inquiry of these cases had been completed by Komnas HAM for a long time. The cases are: a). the Trisakti 1998, Semanggi I 1998 and Semanggi II 1999 incidents (TSS 1998-1999); b). the May Riot 1998 incident, c). the Wasior 2001-2002 incident and the Wamena 2003 incident); d). the case of the Enforced Disappearances 1997-1998; e). The case of Talangsari 1989 ; f). The summary execution-style killings 1982- 1985 (penembakan misterius-petrus/mysterious shootings); g.). The Case of 1965-1966 Tragedy. b) In 2006 the DPR made recommendation for the President to establish an ad hoc Human Rights Court to hear the case of the Enforced Disappearances and to provide rehabilitation and compensation to the victims. The President, however, has not yet established the ad hoc Human Rights Court nor provided the rehabilitation and compensation to the victims. It should mentioned also that the Attorney General has not yet started the investigation and the the prosecution of the case. 4. On the issue of cooperation between Komnas HAM and state’s institution, it can be said that Komnas HAM gained limited support and cooperation from the government to realize its functions, not merely on the issue of resources but also on the response of the government to the human rights cases which have not been followed up by some of the government agencies (e.g. The Attorney General, DPR – House of Representative). In this regard, as mentioned above, the discontinue investigation process by the Attorney General with regard to cases with indication of gross human rights violations although the inquiry of these cases had been completed by Komnas HAM for a long time should be mentioned, among others in more detail: a) The Case of Wasior-Wamena: Komnas HAM had completed the projustitia inquiries of the Wasior 2001-2002 incidents and the Wamena 2003 incidents (both in Papua) in 2004. The result of the inquiry had been submitted to the Attorney General office through a letter No. 290/TUA/IX/2004 dated 3 September 2004. However, the Attorney General had returned the documents through a letter No. R209/A/F.6/11/2004 dated 30 November 2004, which stated that the result of Komnas HAM inquiry was not complete. In response, Komnas HAM had returned the inquiry findings to the Attorney General through a letter No. 376/TUA/XII/2004 dated 29 December 2004, which firmly stated that according to article 20 paragraph 3 of the Act No. 26/2000, the investigator can only return the inquiry findings to the inquirer when the inquiry findings are insufficient, which defined as “not sufficient