A/HRC/7/3/Add.7 page 19 53. The newly established National Police Commission (KOMPOLNAS) is composed of members of the Government, police and some civil society representatives. The Commission receives complaints from the public concerning police performance, but does not report publicly on these activities. 54. All of these bodies do not operate transparently, and the Special Rapporteur has not found any evidence to suggest that they function as effective anti-torture mechanisms. Prosecution of alleged perpetrators of torture 55. There are several avenues for the prosecution of perpetrators of human rights violations. The first is the court of general jurisdiction that applies the Penal Code (KUHP), which is hampered by the lack of a definition of torture, as discussed above. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that article 51 of the Penal Code permits invoking official orders as a justification for acts, which may constitute a violation of article 2 (3) of the Convention against Torture. 56. The second avenue is the human rights court created under Law 26/2000 to prosecute cases of genocide and crimes against humanity based on Human Rights Law 39/1999. According to these laws, the National Human Rights Commission has the authority to receive complaints and conduct preliminary inquiries into allegations of gross human rights violations and to hand them over to the Attorney-General’s office for further action. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that in most of the cases transmitted the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute the case.15 57. According to article 104 of the Law on Human Rights Courts, ad hoc courts can be established for gross human rights violations that occurred before the adoption of the law on 23 November 2000. Such courts were established in six cases so far, but only three of these cases were concluded (on East Timor, Tanjung Priok and Abepura) and not a single State official has been found guilty. For example, in the Abepura case the National Human Rights Commission named 25 suspects; the Attorney General’s office charged two of them and the courts acquitted them despite of evidence that unlawful violence had been committed, justifying its decision by reference to Standard Operating Procedures.16 58. Cases against members of the military fall under the jurisdiction of military courts, which apply the KUHP and the Military Penal Code. Nobody has ever been convicted for torture by a military court. However, since 2006, efforts have been made, with the support of the President, to bring criminal cases within the remit of civilian courts even when members of the army are charged. 15 See Chapter IV of the Annual Report 2006 of the National Human Rights Commission of Indonesia. See also the concluding observations of the CAT Committee, (A/57/44, para. 8 (c)). 16 See e.g. Human Rights Watch: Out of Sight. Endemic Abuse and Impunity in Papua’s Central Highlands. Vol. 19, No. 10 c. July 2007, p. 67.