<![CDATA[The resolution of gross human rights violations in Indonesia continues to face various obstacles due to the dominance of formalistic legal positivism, which emphasizes procedural compliance rather than substantive justice. This study aims to analyze the transformation of legal reasoning from formalistic positivism to constructive utilitarianism as a basis for reconstructing the mechanism for resolving gross human rights violations in Indonesia. This study uses a normative juridical method, a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a historical approach. The source of legal material is obtained from relevant laws and regulations, legal literature, court decisions, and international human rights instruments. The results of the study show that the formalistic positivist approach in resolving gross human rights violations has led to stagnation in case resolution, the marginalization of victims, and the perpetuation of impunity. The limitations of Law No. 26 of 2000 concerning Human Rights Courts and the legal vacuum following the repeal of Law No. 27 of 2004 concerning the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have also weakened the effectiveness of the human rights settlement system in Indonesia. This research offers constructive utilitarianism as an alternative paradigm for assessing the success of the law based on real social benefits, such as victim recovery, truth disclosure, reconciliation, and the prevention of the recurrence of gross human rights violations. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate judicial and non-judicial mechanisms through a criminal justice framework oriented towards victim protection, harmonization with international human rights standards, and the re-establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law as an ius constituendum to realize an accountable, just, and future-oriented human rights settlement system]]>
