several weaknesses and deficiency of the Act No. 26/2000 on Human Rights Court that has deterred the judicial process of resolving gross human right violation has already identified. Thus, the Commission recommended for the amendment of the Law. The weaknesses have been identified among others are: 1.1. Lack of rules of procedure and evidence of its own; 1.2. Inaccurate adoption or translation of certain relevant provisions on mechanism to solve possible different conclusions of the inquirer and the investigator; 1.3. Lack of provisions relating to the initiation of proposals to establish ad hoc Human Rights Court; 1.4. Lack of provisions conferring the inquirer with sub poena power 1.5. Inadequacy of protection for victims and witnesses. 7. In practice, The Commission pointed out that these weaknesses could be seen through, first, the completion of gross human rights violations cases, which are: (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 Trisakti 1998, Semanggi I 1998 and Semanggi II 1999 incidents (TSS 1998-1999), the May Riot 1998 incident, the Wasior 2001-2002 incident and the Wamena 2003 incident); and (b) the refusal of several members of state apparatus to cooperate with Komnas HAM regarding the implementation of projustitia inquiry on alleged gross human rights violations, in this regard, the inquiry on enforced disappearance incidents in the context of crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, The Commission underlined there was several efforts taken by the Commission, the Office of Attorney General and House of Representatives to settle the problem of interpretation provisions relating to the initiation of proposals to establish ad hoc Human Rights Court; 8. The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi or MK), in its decision No. 006/ PUUIV/2006 in December 2006 had determined that the Act No. 27 Year 2004 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not comply with the 1945 Constitution and that the Act No. 27 Year 2004 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not legally binding. The decision of the Constitutional Court had created negative impact on the enforcement of justice and human rights in Indonesia, particularly with regard to the settlement of gross human rights violations cases occurred before the enactment of the Act No. 26 Year 2000 on Human Rights Court. However, the Commission considered that the decision of the Constitutional Court should not negate the idea of national reconciliation to strengthen the unity of the nation as intended by the People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or MPR) in its decision No. V/MPR/2000. 9. The reconciliation efforts should be conducted through many methods, among others, through enactment of legislations comply with the 1945 Constitution and international human rights instruments or through political policies regarding rehabilitation and amnesty in general. Therefore, the alternative (non-judicial) process to solve gross human rights violations is still possible according to article 47 of the Act No. 26 Year 2000 on Human Rights Court through the formulation of a new draft of legislation on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, it should be noted that the reconciliation process as non-judicial alternative settlement of gross human rights violations cases occurred before the enactment of the Act No. 26 Year 2000 on Human Rights Court will need political willingness of all parties. 10. Furthermore, The Commission also observed that the State did not shown genuine willingness to uphold human rights, especially in prosecuting perpetrators of gross human rights violations. The pattern of thought that legal or moral prosecution is part of retaliation politics, especially in the military, indicated that impunity of human rights violations was still existed.