Human Rights Committee discusses and adopts reports on follow-up to concluding observations and to views

Human Rights Committee | 30 March 2015

The Human Rights Committee today discussed and adopted a progress report by the Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations and a progress report by the Rapporteur on follow-up to views.

The Committee’s procedure for follow-up to its concluding observations issued to States consists of identifying a limited number of its recommendations which require additional information from a State party, within one year from the consideration of the Committee’s review of a State party’s country report.  At every session the Committee Member acting as Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations presents an updated progress report to Committee Members.  

Fabian Omar Salvioli, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, presented the draft report (CCPR/C/113/R.4) and briefed the Committee on the follow-up procedure with nine countries: Jordan, Serbia, Yemen, Lithuania, Germany, the Czech Republic, Finland, Mauritania, and Uruguay.  Anja Seibert-Fohr, Committee Member, briefed the Committee on the procedure on Indonesia. Yuji Iwasawa, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-Up to views, presented a progress report on individual communications (CCPR/C/113/R.3), which covered submissions received and processed between June 2014 and January 2015, pertaining to Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon;

Colombia, Denmark, France, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Russia, Spain, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. 

Concerning the follow-up to concluding observations in Jordan, the Committee decided to ask for additional information on the funding and selection of personnel for the National Centre for Human Rights, and to end the practice of administrative detention which was not compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The recommendation to abolish the State Security Court was partially implemented.  The Committee agreed to suspend the follow-up procedure on Jordan and to request the additional information to be included in its upcoming periodic reports.

The Committee took note of the measures in Serbia to ensure the independence of the judiciary, such as the strategy for judicial reform and the reform of the courts, and the specific efforts to address the discrimination of Roma, which included developing the National Action Plan 2010-2015, improving access to employment, and ensuring education for Roma children.

Yemen refused to ensure equality between women and men in law, as requested by the Committee, because it was in contrast with Islamic law.  The Committee took note of legislative measures to address torture and enforced disappearances, and the cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on refugee determination procedure, and on asylum seekers.

Issues of concern in Lithuania included discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the fight against terrorism.  The Committee took note of the draft law on administrative detention and alternative measures to detention, and requested further information on the issue.

Germany complied with the recommendation to temporarily suspend the transfer of asylum seekers to Greece.  The Committee decided to ask for the suspension of this procedure for as long as conditions in reception centres remained difficult and to also ask Germany to address the use of restraints against persons with disabilities in residential homes.

The Committee noted the efforts of the Czech Republic to ensure the accreditation of the Public Defender of Rights in compliance with the Paris Principles and the legal amendment to further its competence and extend the mandate.  Measures had been undertaken to raise awareness about racial discrimination, particularly against Roma, address hate crimes, and protect the rights of persons with mental disabilities.  The Committee acknowledged the prosecution of the perpetrators of forced sterilization of Roma women and stressed that more needed to be done.

Finland was revising its legislation to comply with the Committee’s recommendation to use alternatives to detention and deprivation of liberty of asylum seekers, but the living conditions in asylum detention centres still needed improvement.  The Sami Parliament Act was being revised and specific measures had been taken to guarantee the right of Sami children to receive education in their own language.

Lack of definition of torture in compliance with international standards, and absence of investigations and prosecutions of cases of torture were among the issues raised with Mauritania.  Training of the police and the military cadets must also include international human rights law, and more information was needed on the draft law on the establishment of a national preventive mechanism.  Some measures were taken to eradicate slavery and prosecute the perpetrators, but it was not enough as the practice persisted and only 26 cases had been prosecuted.

The Committee had raised concern about the lack of appropriate resources for the national human rights institution in Uruguay and its compliance with the Paris Principles.  While taking note of the draft amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure which aimed to align it with the provisions of the Covenant in the area of presumption of innocence, the Committee wondered whether it would significantly address criminal policies. 

The Committee had not received any information about the establishment of a court to investigate cases of enforced disappearances committed between 1997 and 1998 in Indonesia.  Indonesia considered drug-related crimes as one of the most serious crimes and said that the death penalty for drug-related crimes was important for the nation’s survival.  The Committee regretted that Indonesia had taken measures on this issue contrary to the Committee’s recommendations.  The Committee took positive note of the firm prohibition by the law of female genital mutilation and said that more information on the steps to prevent the practice was needed.  The Committee decided to reiterate its recommendation to repeal the law on defamation of religion.

Yuji Iwasawa, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to views, presented a follow-up progress report on individual communications (CCPR/C/113/R.3), which covered submissions received and processed between June 2014 and January 2015.  The 31 individual communications contained in the report pertained to Australia (1), Austria (1), Azerbaijan (1), Bosnia and Herzegovina (6), Cameroon (2), Colombia (1), Denmark (1), France (3), Kazakhstan (2), Lithuania (1), Nepal (4), Republic of Korea (1), Russia (1), Spain (1), Uruguay (1), and Uzbekistan (4).  Mr. Iwasawa said that since 1979, but not counting the communications dealt with this session, 908 of the 1,072 views adopted concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2 April to discuss its methods of work and announce bureau decisions before it closes its one hundred and thirteenth session.


For use of the information media; not an official record

– See more at:

UN Human Rights Committee deplores Indonesia’s response to its call to stop executions for drug-related crimes

GENEVA (2 April 2015) – The UN Human Rights Committee has given Indonesia the lowest possible evaluation for its failure to respond to the Committee’s call in 2013 to stop executing prisoners for drug-related crimes.

After a regular review of Indonesia’s human rights record, the Committee in August 2013 urged the State to reinstate the de facto moratorium on the death penalty and to ensure that, if capital punishment was maintained, it was only for the most serious crimes, which do not include drug-related offences. The Committee also called on Indonesia to review its legislation so offences involving narcotics were not punishable by the death penalty.

In a follow-up evaluation of Indonesia this week, Committee members voiced concern at the recent executions in Indonesia and regretted that the State had not amended its legislation as requested. They awarded Indonesia a rare E grade on the scale of A to E, where A is largely satisfactory and E indicates the measures taken go against the Committee’s recommendation.

Indonesia had argued that, given the severe impact and the challenges posed by drug-related crimes to the nation’s survival and its young generation, it considered such offences as among the most serious to which the death penalty may apply.

Article 6* of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a State Party, does allow for the death penalty in certain very restricted cases. The Committee has repeatedly stressed that drug-related offences are not such cases and that capital punishment for drug-related offences does not comply with article 6 of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee monitors implementation by States Parties of the ICCPR by means of regular review and, where applicable, a follow-up procedure to analyse a State’s response to the most pressing issues.

The Committee also urges all States to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which aims at the abolition of the death penalty. In 2013, it called on Indonesia to do so. [ENDS]

For more information and media requests, please contact: Liz Throssell / 41 22 917 9466 / 41 79 752 0488 or Kate Fox 41 22 917 9398 or

Human Rights Committee:


Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR:


*Article 6 of the ICCPR :

  1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
  2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
  3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
  4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
  5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
  6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

General Comment on article 6, on the right to life (16th session, 1982):

UN Human Rights, follow us on social media:






– Source:

“Mengecam Pernyataan Menkopolhukam tentang Pencari Suaka sebagai Komoditas Diplomatik!”


“Mengecam Pernyataan Menkopolhukam tentang Pencari Suaka sebagai Komoditas Diplomatik!”

SUAKA, sebuah jaringan masyarakat sipil untuk advokasi hak-hak azasi pengungsi dan pencari suaka, sangat menyesalkan pernyataan Mekopolhukam yang menjadikan pencari suaka politik/pengungsi sebagai dagangan politik di saat ketegangan diplomatik Indonesia dan Australia terjadi terkait masalah penerapan hukuman mati di Indonesia. Dalam sebuah pernyataanna, Menteri KOPOLHUKAM kopolhukam, Tedjo Edhy Purdijatno, mengancam akan melepaskan 10.000 pencari suaka bila Australia terus bersikap tak bersahabat terhadap eksekusi mati terpidana Bali nine.   Sebuah pernyataan publik yang tidak pantas di ucapkan oleh seorang pejabat tertinggi Republik ini yang brtanggung jawab di bidang Politik dan HAM

Dengan pelbagai alasan dan faktor, sepuluh ribu pengungsi/pencari suaka yang ada di Indonesia saat ini adalah orang-orang yang terancam jiwa dan keamanannya di negara asalnya sehingga terpaksa harus mencari perlindungan di negara lain. Selama ini, sejak 1979, Indonesia, sebagai Negara transit,  telah memberikan bantuan kepada pencari suaka/pengungsi secara sementara, di antaranya pula dengan mengizinkan UNHCR (Kantor Urusan Pengungsi PBB) dan IOM (Organisasi Imigrasi Internasional) di Indonesia untuk menangani permasalahan tersebut sembari menunggu solusi jangka panjang.

Untuk itu, SUAKA memandang bahwa pernyataan Menkopolhukam tersebut mencerminkan bahwa Menteri tidak mengerti tentang permasalahan pengungsi internasional, karena pernyataan tersebut bertentangan dengan sikap dan kebijakan pemerintah Indonesia selama ini yang menilai bahwa permasalahan pengungsi adalah masalah dan tanggung jawab dunia, di mana Indonesia harus dan telah berupaya berbagi beban sebagai bagian dari komunitas Internasional. Dan menjadi actor penting dalam kerjasama regional masalah pengungsi dalam konteks “Bali Process”. yang justru di pimpin oleh Indonesia dan Australia. Pernyataan ini jelas memosisikan para pengungsi hanya sebagai komoditas diplomatik untuk mengurangi tuntutan Australia dalam kasus eksekusi hukuman mati di Indonesia, pernyataan yang merendahkan martabat kemanusiaan, padahal pernyataan ini memberikan efek besar pada kerentanan para pengungsi dan berpotensi menempatkan pengungsi internasional dalam bahaya yang lebih besar.

Sebagai champion demokrasi dan HAM di kawasan Asia Tenggara sudah seharusnya Indonesia menunjukan komitmennya dengan melihat isu pengungsi ini dari perspektif HAM, terlebih hak untuk mencari suaka telah diakui di dalam konstitusi Indonesia, UUD 1945.

Dengan ini, SUAKA menyatakan:

1.    Suaka mengecam pernyataan Menkopolhukam tersebut yang – bisa jadi mewakili pandangan pemerintah secara umum – menyebutkan bahwa Indonesia “bisa melepaskan 10 ribu pengungsi tersebut menjadi Tsunami Manusia ke Australia.” Pengungsi adalah kelompok rentan yang membutuhkan perlindungan dan bukan komoditas politik yang dapat dijadikan daya tawar. Penyebutan pengungsi sebagai “Tsunami Manusia” telah merendahkan martabat manusia  yang selayakanya dijaga sebagai bagian dari penegakan HAM.

2.    Meminta Menkopolhukam agar menarik pernyataannya tersebut dan meningkatkan kerjasama regional  antar negara-negara di kawasan Asia Pasifik termasuk Australia, dalam kerangka kerja penanganan permasalahan pengungsi yang mengupayakan perlindungan hak-hak asasi mereka, serta mencarikan solusi yang permanen (durable solution).  

3.    Dengan absennya kerangka hukum di Indonesia dalam perlindungan pengungsi mengakibatkan adanya diskriminasi dan stigmatisasi terhadap pengungsi sebagai imigran gelap (illegal immigrant), di mana mereka dapat ditangkap dan ditahan tanpa proses yang jelas. Padahal, hukum kebiasaan internasional meletakkan pengungsi sebagai subyek hukum yang harus dilindungi dan difasilitasi.

4.    Melepaskan para pengungsi ke laut lepas melalui perahu akan meletakan hidup para pengungsi ke dalam bahaya yang lebih besar. Khususnya, ketika masih berada dalam proses penentuan status sekaligus perlindungan. Suaka menekankan bahwa Indonesia harus menjadi tuan rumah yang baik dalam memberikan perlindungan sementara bagi mereka.

Jakarta, 13 Maret 2015

Febionesta, Chair of Suaka

Rafendi Djamin, Director of HRWG/Suaka Member