Category Archives: UN Advocacy

Dokumen Follow up Rekomendasi Kunci Komite HAM PBB tentang Hak Sipil dan Politik

Komite HAM PBB mengeluarkan rekomendasi terhadap pelaksanaan Kovenan Hak Sipil dan Politik di Indonesia pada tahun 2013. Di antara rekomendasi-rekomendasi tersebut, terdapat 4 rekomendasi kunci yang harus dilaksanakan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia satu tahun pasca rekomendasi dikeluarkan. Tidak hanya itu, pemerintah Indonesia diharuskan untuk menyampaikan laporan terhadap pelaksanaan rekomendasi-rekomendasi kunci tersebut, di samping juga masukan yang dapat disampaikan oleh masyarakat sipil (laporan alternatif).

Berikut ini adalah dokumen-dokumen yang terkait dengan empat rekomendasi kunci Komite HAM PBB dan dokumen update pelaksanaan rekomendasi tersebut dalam masa waktu satu tahun: 

  • Empat rekomendasi-rekomendasi kunci Komite HAM PBB dan jabaran isu yang dicakup; paragraf 8, 10, 12 dan 25 [Klik di sini]  
    1. The State party should, as a matter of urgency, address the impasse between Komnas HAM and the Attorney General. It should expedite the establishment of a court to investigate cases of enforced disappearance committed between 1997 and 1998 as recommended by Komnas HAM and the Indonesian Parliament. Furthermore, the State party should effectively prosecute cases involving past human rights violations, such as the murder of prominent human rights defender Munir Said Thalib on 7 September 2004, and provide adequate redress to victims or members of their families.
    2. The State party should reinstate the de facto moratorium on the death penalty and should consider abolishing the death penalty by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Furthermore, it should ensure that, if the death penalty is maintained, it is only for the most serious crimes. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party review its legislation to ensure that crimes involving narcotics are not amenable to the death penalty. In this context, the State party should consider commuting all sentences of death imposed on persons convicted for drug crimes.
    3. The State party should repeal Ministry of Health Regulation No. 1636 of 2010, which authorizes the performance of FGM by medical practitioners (medicalization of FGM). In this connection, the State party should enact a law that prohibits any form of FGM and ensure that it provides adequate penalties that reflect the gravity of this offence. Furthermore, the State party should make efforts to prevent and eradicate harmful traditional practices, including FGM, by strengthening its awareness-raising and education programmes. In this regard, the national-level team established to develop a common perception on the issue of FGM should ensure that communities where the practice is widespread are targeted in order to bring a change in mind set.
    4. Notwithstanding the decision of the Constitutional Court upholding Law No. 1 of 1965 on defamation of religion, the Committee is of the view that the said law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Covenant and that it should be repealed forthwith. The Committee reiterates its position as stated in paragraph 48 of general comment No. 34, that: “ Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. … Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.” Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the State party provide adequate protection against violence perpetrated against members of religious minorities.
  • Surat yang dikirimkan Komite HAM PBB kepada Pemerintah Indonesia agar mengirimkan laporan pelaksanaan rekomendasi [klik di sini
  • Laporan Follow up yang disampaikan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia kepada Komite HAM PBB atas 4 rekomendasi kunci (CCPR/C/IND/CO/1/Add.1) [klik di sini]
  • Laporan masyarakat sipil tentang pelaksanaan 4 rekomendasi Komite HAM PBB (dikoordinasikan oleh HRWG dan CCPR Centre) [klik di sini]
  • Laporan masyarakat sipil bersama disusun oleh Imparsial, Vivat International dan FI [klik di sini]

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: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15775&LangID=E#sthash.jtyYFIHK.dpuf

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 ethrossell@ohchr.org / 41 22 917 9466 / 41 79 752 0488 or Kate Fox kfox@ohchr.org/ 41 22 917 9398 or

Human Rights Committee:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx

ICCPR: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx

———————-

*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): http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fGEC%2f6630&Lang=en

UN Human Rights, follow us on social media:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights

Twitter: http://twitter.com/UNrightswire

Google+ gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR

Storify: http://storify.com/UNrightswire

– Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15792&LangID=E#sthash.PvqPbPsV.dpuf

HRWG dan Perwakilan Masyarakat Sipil Asean Akan Bahas Pengungsi Rohingya

130408_rohingyaBisnis.com 26 Mei 2015 | JAKARTA—Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) bersama perwakilan masyarakat sipil Asean akan membahas Visi Asean 2025 dari perspektif masyarakat sipil termasuk membahas soal pengungsi Rohingya.

Wakil Direktur Eksekutif HRWG, Choirul Anam mengatakan kegiatan yang akan diselenggarakan di Hotel Ritz Carlton, Mega Kuningan, Jakarta, pada pukul 13.00 WIB ini akan merespons berbagai persoalan regional Asean secara serius seperti tragedi kemanusiaan a.l. pengungsi Rohingya dan menjamin perlindungan buruh migran.

Selain itu, menurutnya isu lain yang akan bersama-sama diangkat yaitu mendorong Pemerintah Asean memperhatikan pencaplokan lahan dan berbagai agenda kemanusiaan lainnya.

“Pemerintah berkomitmen akan membentuk komunitas Asean yang berorientasi dan berpusat kepada rakyat tapi di dalam proses penyusunannya, Asean kurang memberikan ruang bagi pelibatan masyarakat,” katanya, Senin (25/5/2015).

Menurutnya, di dalam pembentukan komunitas ini, pemerintah di negara Asean telah membentuk High Level Task Force (HLTF) untuk menyusun visi dan rencana kerja Komunitas ASEAN 2016-2025.

“HRWG bersama 40 perwakilan masyarakat sipil negara ASEAN akan memberi masukan terhadap pemerintah ASEAN terhadap Komunitas ASEAN,” tuturnya.

Source: Bisnis.com

Indonesia Performance at the 32nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Indonesia was re-elected as a UN Human Rights Council Member from 2015 to 2017. As a democratic country in ASEAN, Indonesia occupies an important position in the region. During the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council, Indonesia actively delivered statements on issues of concern to the country. It raised issues of migrant workers and responded to the report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. It also discussed its commitment to the SDGs and the right to development. Indonesia has officially invited the Special Rapporteur on Health to visit the country in 2017 for further engagement.

In spite of these positive developments, Indonesia remains silent on some critical domestic and regional issues , including follow-up to human rights violations against Papuans; summary executions; and violations against the Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar.

NGOs often draw the Council’s attention to the human rights situation in West Papua as it is one of the most isolated areas in the world. There are many reported cases of arbitrary arrests by Indonesian security forces of indigenous Papuans for participating in peaceful gatherings. While Franciscans International delivered a joint statement with the Human Rights Working Group Indonesia on this issue during the General Debate, Indonesia remained silent.

Although Indonesia offered temporary shelter for Rohingya people, it did not deliver a statement on issues involving the Rohingya or other ethnic groups in Burma/Myanmar following the presentation of the High Commissioner.

Indonesia also attempted to avoid a sensitive issue in the country when it voted against a draft resolution on “violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”. Indonesia claimed that it based its decision on respect for socio-cultural and religious values, norms and morality. However, in reality it would appear that it decided not to respect fundamental human rights of certain individuals.

Indonesia was part of the core group that introduced the resolution A/HRC/RES/32/32 on “the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association”, along with other Asian countries such as the Maldives and the Philippines. While this may show Indonesia’s international appreciation for the involvement of civil society in maintaining a democratic society, the freedom of assembly and association inside Indonesia is at risk. LGBTI groups, ethnic groups, religious minority groups, and other individuals have been considered threats to sovereignty and ideology in Indonesia.

 

Originally published in: FORUM-ASIA

Joint Statement : Indonesian CSO Regrets the Government’s Position on SOGI Resolution

[GENEVA, 30 JUNE 2016] Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Indonesia and Arus Pelangi deeply regret to the vote against the resolution A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1 on “violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)” that has been adopted on the 32nd Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council,Geneva, Switzerland. The intention of the resolution is to appoint an Independent Expert on the protection against violence and discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity(SOGI) for three years period according to the given mandate.

Although the resolution finally has been adopted with results as 23 in favour, 18 against, and 6 abstain, the resolution was required 3,5 hours to discuss and debates. Pakistan (on behalf the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), except Albania) has amended several points on the resolution. Historically, the resolution wanted to clarify and reaffirm that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or another status. It is also to strongly deplore acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In their statement, the Government of Indonesia has said that due to the sensitivity of issue particularly for those who have differences in socio-cultural, religion norms and morality, the draft resolution, as well as the several amendments which have been made, the concept was still lack of recognition on different culture, norms and views of other society. In conclusion, the Government of Indonesia is unable to support and vote against the resolution. They also clarified that they will not want to cooperate with the Independent Expert of SOGI, even if the mandate is created, as reported by Astrid Maharani, Program Officer for UN Advocacy, HRWG Indonesia, which also undergoing the Fellowship Programme in Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) based in Geneva, Switzerland.

As we have seen in recent years, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups have become the target of irresponsible individual/groups which frequently using violent, discriminate, and stigmatise them of what they have. Even in some countries, many of them got killed, being hated, or even being exiled in the community.

In Indonesia recently, there are numerous of the anti-gay statements even made by public officials. It was increasingly hateful rhetoric shows no sign of abating. The rejection of the Government of Indonesia at the 32nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council also has extended list of repression by the State. Until this year, Arus Pelangi recorded at least 17 Indonesian policy explicitly discriminate against or criminalize people with diverse SOGI. This does not include the policy in its implementation LGBTI oppressive. Democracy spaces on LGBTI groups were banned by the prohibition of implementation of activities by the police and a disregard for the case of the attack on LGBTI activities.

In this regard, HRWG Indonesia and Arus Pelangi urge the Government of Indonesia to respect and uphold the new resolution based on SOGI to protect and respect individual/groups that are belonging to SOGI, as well as to cooperate with the Independent Expert in the discharge of the mandate, including by providing all of information requested. It intends to raise awareness of violence and discrimination against person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as to engage in dialogue and to consult with States and other relevant stakeholders, including United Nations agencies, programmes and funds, regional human rights mechanisms, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academic institutions.

The rejection also shows clearly that the Government of Indonesia has betrayed their citizen. The results of the study “Revealing Stigma, Discrimination, and Violence on LGBT in Indonesia” conducted by Arus Pelangi, Komunitas Sehati Makassar, and PLUSH on  2013 have uncovered facts that horrible: 89.3% LGBT in Indonesia got violence based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or expression with details as follows: 79.1% experienced psychological violence, physical violence 46.3%, economic violence 26.3%, sexual assault 45.1%, and cultural violence 63.3%.

In this regard, we would like to call for:

  1. The Government of Indonesia to respect and uphold the new resolution based on SOGI to protect and respect individual/groups that are belonging to the SOGI, as well as to cooperate with the Independent Expert in the discharge of the mandate, including by providing all of information requested. This intends to raise awareness of violence and discrimination against person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as to engage in dialogue and to consult with States and other relevant stakeholders;
  2. The Government of Indonesia to run completely and faithful to the mandate of the Indonesia citizen contained in the 1945 Constitution, every person shall be protected by the State, regardless of their background;
  3. The National Human Rights Commission (KOMNAS HAM) of the Republic of Indonesia to:
  • Significantly embodies its supervisory mandate with a strong warning to the Government of Indonesia regarding its position at the Human Rights Council;
  • Taking notes the Government of Indonesia position in the report of Observation of the implementation of human rights, as stated in the Article 89 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights;
  • Continues to be committed and sincere in implementing the dissemination of knowledge of human rights to its citizen.

To the Indonesia civil society organisations:

  • Continue to maintain, support and build solidarity by using all of potentials and space held for mutually reinforcing, particularly in LGBTIQ groups which most oppressed.

 

Joint Statements by:

Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Indonesia

(Muhammad Hafiz – hafizmuhammad85@gmail.com & Astrid Maharani – amaharanic@gmail.com)

National Federation for LGBTI Communities – Arus Pelangi

(Yuli Rustinawati – yuli@aruspelangi.or.id)