Two Reports from the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG)
on TORTURE by Indonesian Security Forces
1) UN Committee against Torture begins Review of Report of Indonesia (6 May 2008)
2) UN Committee against Torture hears Response of Indonesia (7 May 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some extracts from the Review & from the Indonesian response (for the FULL REPORT see below) :
“During his recent visit to Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur on Torture had noted that torture is routine in Indonesian police stations.”
“…there is a consistent problem of impunity. No one had been convicted of torture and torture was reportedly widely used by [Indonesian] military and police forces, especially in conflict areas.”
“Further, Indonesia had said that the Special Rapporteur had, in his report, not mentioned any acts of torture, but that was not completely true. There was a lot of information in his report, especially about routine beatings.”
“ …in today’s answers [by the Indonesian delegation], no information was given about the legal proceedings concerning the individuals that were wanted by Interpol for their implication in the East Timor conflict. One of them was a colonel currently serving with the Indonesian military command. [Colonel Siagian, indicted by the UN for war crimes in East Timor was promoted by Indonesia to become commander of the Indonesian military in the West Papuan capital, Jayapura]
Was the Government planning to arrest this individual and respect its obligations under Interpol? Also, the question of sending such commanders from one hot spot to the other [from East Timor to West Papua] had not been addressed.”
“The Special Rapporteur had noted human rights defenders were suffering from serious constraints, imputable to the activities of various groups harassing human rights. Also, could the delegation ensure that none of the members of the non-governmental organizations present in the room would suffer from reprisal upon their return in Indonesia?”
UN Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, Committee Expert Felice Gaer
“On the question of Papua, the [Indonesian] delegation said that violence present in this region and that allegations of violent acts by police officers were always looked into. Further, the local Government was increasing its ability to train police in the area of human rights.” I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA, Ambassador and Charge d’Affaires at the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva
___________________________________________________________
United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG)
May 6, 2008
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF INDONESIA
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en) /C8E4430CBEA32163C1257441004AF76E? OpenDocument
GENEVA, Switzerland
The following information was released by the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) :
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of Indonesia on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Rezlan Ishar Jenie, Director-General of Multilateral Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said that a series of amendments to the Constitution had been introduced between 1999 and 2002. This had significantly strengthened the cause of democratization and the rule of law in Indonesia. The Government was conducting a comprehensive review of the laws and regulations to bring them in accordance with international human rights standards. Three legal institutions had been established to strengthen the reform: the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Commission and the office of the Ombudsman.
The promotion of the implementation of the Convention against Torture did not rely only on the legislative pillar, said Mr. Jenie. The right not to be tortured was clearly stated as a constitutional right. The Constitution provided mechanisms for the Constitutional Court to continually evaluate and improve the Constitution. Concerning counterterrorism efforts by the Government, Mr. Jenie said that Indonesia believed in the importance of respecting human rights and international laws. The perpetrators of terrorist acts who had been apprehended had benefited from the due process of law in accordance with human rights norms. There had been no indefinite and incommunicado detention. The root causes of terrorism were also being addressed, such as poverty, injustice, extremism and radicalism.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, Committee Expert Felice Gaer said that during his recent visit to Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur on Torture had noted that torture was routine in Indonesian police stations. He had also expressed a lot of concern about legal safeguards. The Committee had received information from various sources indicating that there was a consistent problem of impunity. No one had been convicted of torture and torture was reportedly widely used by military and police forces, especially in conflict areas. Further, Indonesia had said that the Special Rapporteur had, in his report, not mentioned any acts of torture, but that was not completely true. There was a lot of information in his report, especially about routine beatings.
Claudio Grossman, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, asked, concerning the so-called "Brigade Mobile", how long were its members trained? Were they provided with information about the Convention? How was this unit funded? Was it also made clear during training that impunity would not be tolerated? Concerning the number of female staff in detention facilities, Mr. Grossman noted that it fell short of international standards. What steps had been taken to remedy this situation?
Other issues of concern raised by Experts included female genital mutilation, with one Expert saying that it seemed that there were regularly group mutilations taking place in certain regions. According to information received by one of the Experts, in some regions 96 per cent of the girls had been subjected to circumcision before the age of 14. What did the State party do to prevent such practices? On the issue of impunity, one Expert noted that change in society was not only done through the change of legal framework but also through the change of attitudes and customs. It was surely important to have a legal regime protecting all the population and impunity should not be encouraged, especially when there were cases linked to torture.
Also representing the delegation of Indonesia were members of the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the Centre of Research and Development of the Department of Religious Affairs, the Indonesian National Police, the Kalimantan Province, the West Kalimantan Province, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the National Labour Placement and Protection Agency, the Coordinating Ministry of Political Law and Security, the Ministry of Women Empowerment, the Indonesian Attorney General Office, the Department of Religious Affairs, the Papua Province, the National Judicial Commission, the National Ombudsman Commission, the National Commission of Child Protection and the Indonesia Armed Forces.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p. m. on Wednesday, 7 May 2008, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Indonesia is among the 145 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p. m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of Costa Rica to the questions posed by Experts on 5 May 2008.
Report of Indonesia
The second periodic report of Indonesia (CAT/C/72/Add. 1) notes that one of the most important developments in the field of human rights in Indonesia since the initial report was the promulgation of a law on human rights, which guarantees that any violations of human rights will be brought to justice. Another article clearly stipulates that the Human Rights Court has the authority to adjudicate "torture" if it was carried out or used by officers to gain information or confession either from the suspect, or a third person; or to intimidate or force the suspect or a third person; or as an expression of discrimination in any form. Furthermore, the transfer of the judicial administration from the Department of Justice and Human Rights into the Supreme Court, as part of the legal reform, has put all aspects of the judicial system in Indonesia under the Supreme Court. Another change was the separation of the Police from the armed forces. The President has also established the Ombudsman Commission (Komisi Ombudsman) on 20 March 2000 with mandates to receive, investigate, and follow up reports from the public concerning the protection of their rights and the services rendered by the Government.
The Indonesian Government has consistently given a priority to the respect for and the implementation of human rights. In 2004, Indonesia introduced its second Plan of Action on Human Rights (for the period of 2004-2009) through a Presidential Decree. In the implementation of the Indonesian Plan of Action, special attention has been given to training for police personnel, prison officials, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, teachers and the armed forces. There have also been new developments in the legal framework since the first report. The Draft Penal Code, for example, stipulates, "Everyone who commits tortures shall be sentenced to 3 years minimum and 15 years maximum imprisonments." The Government of Indonesia has also done its utmost to ensure that torture is a criminal act and the perpetrator shall be punished with appropriate penalties. According to the Indonesian penal code, an attempt to commit crimes is punishable. In addition, another article stipulates that the Human Rights Court has the authority to investigate and adjudicate gross violations of human rights committed outside Indonesian territory by Indonesian citizens.
Presentation of Report
REZLAN ISHAR JENIE, Director-General of Multilateral Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said that Indonesia enjoyed a highly decentralized system of governance. Four hundred and thirty six of the 476 provinces now had their own local committees for the implementation of the National Action Plan on Human Rights. The most important task was to ensure that the people had access to mechanisms for the redress of their grievances. Indonesia had now reached further progress in its reform programme in order to correct past mistakes.
Mr. Jenie noted that a series of amendments to the Constitution had been conducted between 1999 and 2002. It had significantly strengthened the cause of democratization and the rule of law in Indonesia. The legal reform covered the body of laws and the legal institutions. The Government had been conducting a comprehensive review of the laws and regulations to bring them in accordance with international human rights standards. Three legal institutions had been established to strengthen the reform: the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Commission and the office of the Ombudsman.
The promotion of the implementation of the Convention against Torture did not rely only on the legislative pillar, said Mr. Jenie. The right not to be tortured was clearly stated as a constitutional right. The Constitution provided mechanisms for the Constitutional Court to continually evaluate and improve the Constitution. The Constitution entrusted the Judicial Commission to introduce effective reforms including measures to prevent corruption of the judiciary. Another contribution by the Judicial Commission concerned the examination of evidence. Evidence was declared legitimate when it was obtained in open trial and the Commission played an important role in deterring evidence which was not obtained in compliance with human rights norms.
Another fundamental change was the establishment of a National Office of Ombudsmen. The Office had conducted monitoring activities on correctional facilities. It had revealed that many daunting challenges, especially as a result of limited financial resources, remained to be overcome. Recent changes in the Constitution had produced a state structure with an effective checks and balances mechanism between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. A series of elections had also taken place that had been observed as free, democratic, fair and peaceful, said Mr. Jenie. Democratisation was going in the right direction.
Mr. Jenie underlined that after more than three decades of a very strong centralized Government, a new policy of regional autonomy had been in place since 2001. The regional administrations could now attend directly to the needs and aspirations of the people. They were called upon to be sensitive to human rights and to promote and protect them. The Government had also been able to settle conflicts in areas such as Poso, Maluku and Aceh. In Aceh, progress was made in building confidence. In the provinces of West Papua and Papua, development efforts had been intensified aimed at improving the welfare of the people there.
Concerning counterterrorism efforts by the Government, Mr. Jenie said that Indonesia believed in the importance of respecting human rights and international laws. The perpetrators of terrorist acts who had been apprehended had been given due process of the law in accordance with human rights norms. There had been no indefinite and incommunicado detention. The root causes of terrorism were also being addressed, such as poverty, injustice, extremism and radicalism.
Mr. Jenie also noted that the promotion and protection of human rights required the freedom of the press and media. The Indonesian media was among the freest in the world. All prominent newspapers had special pages dedicated to human rights. It was no exaggeration to state that they had successfully established a community-based control mechanism.
One of the remaining impediments was the fact that the Indonesian Criminal Code was still based on the Dutch State Gazette of 1915. There was a need to expedite the process of incorporating the definition of torture in the revision of the criminal code, said Mr. Jenie.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Indonesia, said that the first report had largely been an account of legal developments. The country had gone through a major transformation in the last 30 years. The new report also mainly focused on efforts to reform the law. But it was also important to see if, in practice, the law was being respected.
On the definition of torture and its criminalisation, there seemed to be a gap in the legislation, said Ms. Gaer. The Indonesian penal code recognised and punished acts of maltreatment and the act of torture was covered in provisions of the revised penal code. Between 2000 and 2004, 330 military and police officials had been brought to justice under charges of maltreatment. After the separation of the police and the military, 362 military officers had been put on trial for similar charges and all had been found guilty by the Military Court. She wondered how these people had been selected by the Government. Had they enjoyed a fair trial? How was it possible that all of the accused had been found guilty? How many had been responsible of torture and how many of maltreatment?
Also, if the police and military had been separated, how could it be that there had been 362 military personnel indicted of maltreatment and not a single case in the police, wondered Ms. Gaer. Had there been no cases of civilian maltreatment brought forward? It was also baffling to note that there had been many allegations of torture and none had resulted in a single indictment. There seemed to be a badly working mechanism, especially in light of the fact that there had been so many indictments inside the military.
During his recent visit to Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur on Torture had noted that torture was routine in Indonesian police stations. He had also expressed a lot of concern about legal safeguards. The Committee had received information from various sources indicating that there was a consistent problem of impunity. No one had been convicted of torture and torture was reportedly widely used by military and police forces, especially in areas of conflicts. Further, Indonesia had said that the Special Rapporteur had, in his report, not mentioned any acts of torture, but that was not completely true, said Ms. Gaer. There was a lot of information in his reports, especially about routine beatings.
There was no information in the periodic report on whether the Government had investigated the cases that had been identified by the Special Rapporteur? What had been done to establish a satisfactory complaint mechanism? Was the State party considering giving broader access to NGOs and other bodies to conduct unannounced visits to places of detention? Ms. Gaer noted that the Special Rapporteur had wished to conduct such an unannounced visit but had been unable to do so.
Concerning the police, what provisions were in place that ensured accountability? Was there a police unit that investigated alleged abuses? Also, Ms. Gaer said that a separate police unit had been created, called Wilayatul Hisbah. It had been reported that the members of this special police unit did not receive any training about the Convention against Torture. Was this unit accountable to the legal authorities and the police? Members of this police unit had been reportedly recruited just off the streets, was this true? Had there been any proceedings inside this unit for overstepping authority?
Ms. Gaer also underlined that the draft penal code, that had already been discussed during the review of the first periodic report in 2001, was still a draft after more than 20 years. Did Indonesia plan to have the penal code enter into force anytime soon? Also, had there been investigations concerning the relationship between specific military commanders that had been involved in different areas of conflicts and the increase of alleged human rights violations in these very same specific regions? Further, did rape still require the confirmation of two witnesses in the new draft criminal code? What measures were taken to ensure that persons serving in the judiciary were appropriately trained in human rights? Also, Interpol had issued red notices for people currently residing in Indonesian and who had been involved in the East Timor conflict. Was Indonesia, as a member of Interpol, planning to hand them over?
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, asked further question, under which, was there a time limit to incorporate the definition of torture? What steps had been taken to extradite persons that had been involved in East Timor and to investigate the crimes of torture that had been reported there.
Concerning the so-called Brigade Mobile, how long were its members trained? Were they provided with information about the Convention? How was this unit funded? Was it also made clear during training that impunity would not be tolerated? Concerning the number of female staff in detention facilities, Mr. Grossman noted that it fell short of international standards. What steps had been taken to remedy this situation? Also, were there any cases involving rape and sexual assault in prisons?
Further Mr. Grossman asked whether treason was considered as a crime in Indonesia. How many persons were currently serving prison sentences for treason? Also, what complaints mechanisms were available in prisons? And how many complaints had been received? Could victims of torture claim compensation? Was the human rights ad-hoc court able to grant compensation to victims? The law mentioned "gross violations of human rights", how was this defined? Had there been any external investigation of the national police?
Finally, Mr. Grossman noted that in his region, South America, one woman out of four was the victim of domestic violence. This was an act of cowardice and a very outrageous form of discrimination against women. What measures had been taken in Indonesia in this regard? Had they addressed this issue?
Other Committee Experts asked questions related to children, and how could one be sure that the child protection laws were being fully respected? What were the complaints mechanisms made available to children and how could they report torture or ill-treatment? Many children did not have any birth certificate, this was important to be able to enjoy rights. Was Indonesia going to meet the goal of 100 percent birth registration by 2015?
On female genital mutilation, it seemed that there were regular group mutilations taking place in certain regions. According to information received by one of the Experts, in some regions 96 per cent of the girls had been subjected to circumcision before the age of 14. What did the State party do to prevent such practices?
Concerning children detained in prisons, it had been reported that they were detained with adults. Although a separation between children and adults was provided by the law, this was not the case in practice. Also, children were sentenced to severe prison terms even though the children protection act argued strongly against prison sentences and proposed it only as a last resort. What was planned in regard to alternative places of detention for children?
Further, was health and schooling provided to children in camps for internally displaced persons? Was there a registry recording the transfer of detainees from one police retention centre to another during pre-trial detention? Were there any provisions that had been adopted to ensure the respect of the human rights of internally displaced persons in Indonesia?
On the issue of impunity, one Expert noted that a change in society was not only done through the change of legal framework but also through the change of attitudes and customs. It was surely important to have a legal regime protecting all the population and impunity should not be encouraged, especially when there were cases linked to torture.
Was a citizen who felt he was a victim of torture able to launch a judicial procedure? It was noted that torture was not penalized but that ill-treatment and abuse were penalized. However the sentences that had been pronounced in such cases were very light, even though such acts were considered as being very severe by the Convention against Torture. How was the right to legal assistance being provided to arrested people?
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT08011E -- ***********************************************************
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF INDONESIA
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en) /54E3118EC5178635C12574420041CFBF? OpenDocument
7 May 2008
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Indonesia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 6 May 2008, the delegation, which was led by Rezlan Ishar Jenie, Director-General for Multilateral Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said with regard to the definition of torture, it was true the penal code was not worded in the terms of the Convention. However, the crime of maltreatment, involving the physical abuse of people, was covered. About the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the delegation said that the act establishing the Commission had been adopted in 2004. In 2005, the President issued a decree forming the Commission’s selection committee. In 2006, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had proposed certain amendments to the Commission, as they were concerned that the articles in the act contradicted the Constitution. Later, the Constitutional Court declared that the act had no legally binding power. This decision had been a shock to certain NGOs. The court’s decision thus terminated the process. But this did not mean that there were no solutions aimed at addressing the past gross human rights violations. The Government continued to conduct public debates on the issue. Three committees would be established for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: one for the investigation of human rights violations, one on amnesty and one on compensation, reparation and rehabilitation.
On female genital mutilation, the delegation noted that the practice in Indonesia was merely a ritualistic procedure. It was assured that these symbolic activities did not inflict great pain. Also, it was women health officials who were carrying them out. The practice was carried out to respect beliefs and was not seen as a mutilation. It was not like in other parts of the world. Further, it was not true that 97 percent of baby girls had undergone female genital mutilation as had been stated by one of the Experts. This was a traditional and unharmful ritual. The Department of Health had conducted an awareness raising campaign through the dissemination of information which underlined that the practice of female genital mutilation was not obligatory. As an example, one circumcised women of the delegation said she was very happy when she was circumcised because she received a lot of money as presents.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Indonesia towards the end of the session on Friday, 16 May 2008.
As one of the 145 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Indonesia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a. m. on Thursday, 8 May 2008, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the second periodic report of Zambia (CAT/C/ZMB/2).
Response of Indonesia
I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA, Ambassador and Charge d’Affaires at the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in preliminary comments, said that the delegation of Indonesia had noted more than 50 questions by the Committee and they would answer them in detail and in written form. The oral responses they would provide today were clustered around the principal issues.
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on 6 May 2008, the delegation of Indonesia said that, with regard to the definition of torture, it was true that the penal code was not worded in the terms of the Convention. However, the crime of maltreatment, involving the physical abuse of people, was covered. The fact that torture was not rightly covered did of course give too much room for interpretation. However, torture was defined in the human rights code. Also, the draft bill of the penal code defined torture in the terms of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. The enactment of the draft penal code was taking a while because of the many changes that were involved. The absence of torture in the legal code did not mean that they were doing nothing against police and prison officers accused of maltreatment.
Concerning the issue of impunity, the police and military units had increased their efforts in training their officers in human rights norms and also about the Convention against Torture, and the result of this should be seen in the future. The fact that many military and police officials were being indicted for maltreatment showed that there was no impunity granted, the delegation said. With regard to safeguards, the Government had established a number of bodies to monitor and evaluate the different law enforcement units. Also, members of the police were tried in civil courts and not in military courts.
On allegations of the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, the delegation said that in Indonesia, the freedom of religion and practice of religion was provided by the Indonesian legislation. It may only be limited when dissemination of religious beliefs, different from the main registered religions in the country, took place. This was in order to ensure public order. The Government was limiting its role to maintaining the law and protecting its citizens.
Concerning detentions, the delegation noted that according to the criminal procedure law, a person could be detained from 2 to up to 40 days. Concerning the rights of the detainees and detained foreigners, everyone detained in prison had the right to contact their families, advocates, legal councillor, translators, medical assistance and so on. Lawyers were provided by the State for those who were not able to provide for a lawyer themselves. In prisons, open and free visits by relatives and family were authorized. Concerning the detention of children with adults, this was linked to the fact that in one specific region there was no facility available to detain children, so they were detained with adults.
With regard to the use of evidence during trials, testimony obtained through torture was not considered as legal evidence. Concerning the registration of detainees, the delegation noted that there was no central register. Prisoners were controlled by the prosecutors, whereas detainees were controlled by the police.
About the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the delegation said that the act establishing the Commission had been adopted in 2004. In 2005, the President issued a decree forming the Commission’s selection committee. In 2006, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had proposed certain amendments to the Commission, as they were concerned that the articles in the act contradicted the Constitution. Later, the Constitutional Court declared that the act had no legally binding power. This decision had been a shock to certain NGOs. The court’s decision thus terminated the process. But this did not mean that there were no solutions aimed at addressing the past gross human rights violations. The Government continued to conduct public debates on the issue. Three committees would be established for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: one for the investigation of human rights violations, one on amnesty and one on compensation, reparation and rehabilitation.
On internally displaced persons, the delegation noted that Indonesia was a disaster prone and conflict torn country. The Government of Indonesia had established a disaster management board which provided directives concerning emergency response and set standards for the supervision of internally displaced persons.
Concerning the role of the National Ombudsman Commission, the delegation said that this was an independent body that conducted oversight of State apparatuses providing public services. Its procedures mainly dealt with complaints raised by the people. The issues concerned the quality of the services provided. The National Ombudsman Commission also monitored and visited places of detention. The Commission saw a need for the immediate separation of child inmates from adult inmates. Also, it was of the view that alternatives had to be found to the imprisonment of children.
On the question of Papua, the delegation said that violence present in this region and that allegations of violent acts by police officers were always looked into. Further, the local Government was increasing its ability to train police in the area of human rights.
Concerning child issues, perpetrators of violence against children faced a sentence of imprisonment of up to three years. Separating male and female detainees and children from adults was planned, however, as the various prisons had no facilities to deal with this, it was currently impossible to fully implement this. Also, the minimum age to be tried in court would be raised from 8 to 12 years. On the issue of birth certificates, they were now made available free of charge.
On female genital mutilation, the delegation noted that the practice in Indonesia was merely a ritualistic procedure. It was assured that these symbolic activities did not inflict great pain. Also, it was women health officials who were carrying them out. The practice was carried out to respect beliefs and was not seen as a mutilation. It was not like in other parts of the world. Further, it was not true that 97 percent of baby girls had undergone female genital mutilation as had been stated by one of the Experts. This was a traditional and unharmful ritual. The Department of Health had conducted an awareness raising campaign through the dissemination of information which underlined that the practice of female genital mutilation was not obligatory. As an example, one circumcised women of the delegation said she was very happy when she was circumcised because she received a lot of money as presents.
Questions by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Indonesia, welcomed the acknowledgment by the State party of the shortcoming concerning the definition of torture in the law. She noted that in today’s answers, no information was given about the legal proceedings concerning the individuals that were wanted by Interpol for their implication in the East Timor conflict. One of them was a colonel currently serving with the Indonesian military command. Was the Government planning to arrest this individual and respect its obligations under Interpol? Also, the question of sending such commanders from one hot spot to the other had not been addressed.
On amnesties, Ms. Gaer noted that the Truth and Friendship Commission had the ability to grant amnesties for serious crimes. Was the Government planning to end this? Concerning trafficking, how much money was the Government giving to law enforcement units to help them investigate cases of human trafficking.
On human rights defenders, Ms. Gaer said that without them being able to function normally, the whole human rights process and even the work of the Committee against Torture would be weakened. The Special Rapporteur had noted human rights defenders were suffering from serious constraints, imputable to the activities of various groups harassing human rights. Also, could the delegation ensure that none of the members of the non-governmental organizations present in the room would suffer from reprisal upon their return in Indonesia?
Further, Ms. Gaer asked what effective measures were in place to cancel regional laws that were not in line with international standards. Coerced confessions were not considered legal, yet the Special Rapporteur had found that this was commonly used in police stations, what was being done to address this? Had there been cases where people complained that their testimony had been coerced?
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Indonesia, said long detentions period created serious problems, and 61 days were a long time.
Other Committee Experts asked further questions and made comments about the registration of young people in places of detention. On the question of female genital mutilation, one Expert did not contest the financial gains linked to it but underlined that there were no health gains acquired. The fact that the female genital mutilation was being carried out by health officials was not necessarily a good argument. The Committee looked forward for the State to come back to them on this subject. Also, an Expert welcomed the raising of the penal age from 8 to 12, but said it should be raised further.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Indonesia said that, concerning coercive evidence, if a legal officer forced someone to confess, he could be subjected to four years of imprisonment. Also, if a person said his confessions had been made under torture, these confessions would not be taken into account.
Concerning female genital mutilation, it was not a problem and the Government was providing information to the public that it was not obligatory both for religious practices and for health benefits. There was no harm from female genital mutilation, even though there was no benefit.
Concluding, the delegation said that all these initiatives were work in progress and much remained to be done.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT08014E
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
Support ETAN! Donate online. Just go to http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm. Thank you for your support!
John M. Miller etan@igc.org
National Coordinator, ETAN
Web site: http://www.etan.org
Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out how to learn more about East Timor on the Internet
Richard Samuelson Free West Papua Campaign, Oxford, UK. www.freewestpapua.org