Indonesia Mulls Introduction of a 'Probationary' Death Penalty

Source: Al Jazeera (10 October 2022)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/10/indonesia-considers-plans-for-a-probationary-death-penalty

When Indonesia recently unveiled the latest plans to overhaul its ageing Criminal Code, one of the articles that caught everyone’s eye was the one about the death penalty.

While Indonesia has long executed those convicted of crimes such as terrorism, murder, and drug trafficking, the draft of the new Criminal Code describes execution as a “last resort” and offers an alternative: a 10-year probationary period during which those condemned can have the sentence replaced with a life term if they meet certain conditions.

According to the draft, which is expected to be signed into law in the coming months, judges will be empowered to hand down a death sentence with a probationary period of 10 years if the defendant “shows remorse, there is a chance of reform, they did not play a large role in the crime committed, or there were mitigating factors in the case”.

The so-called probationary death sentence, which has echoes of the two-year ‘reprieve’ that China offers to some of those convicted to death, has raised some concerns, however.

Usman Hamid, the head of Amnesty Indonesia, which campaigns for an end to the death penalty in its entirety, says that if a probationary period is going to be used, it should be granted to everyone who is sentenced to death.

“The concept of the death penalty as an alternative punishment is inconsistent, because the government’s formulation has regressed to where the waiting period is dependent on the judge’s decision, something that is prone to abuse,” he said.

Kirsten Han, a Singapore based anti-death penalty campaigner and independent journalist, says Indonesia’s plans for a probationary death penalty were interesting, but that it remained to be seen how it would actually work in practice.

“It is an improvement from what we have because at least it says that the death penalty should be a ‘last resort’ and that there are mitigating factors, whereas what we have here is mandatory death,” she said. “My main question would be how and who evaluates the criteria like ‘good behaviour’ and ‘chance for reform’.”

Dobby Chew, the executive coordinator of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network based in Malaysia, agrees.

“It is not a bad idea per se and could be described as somewhat progress. But the conception and framework can be highly problematic as the starting point still requires a person to be sentenced to death,” Chew said.

“A probationary death penalty would put inmates in this odd circumstance where they have to live with the idea they need to prove themselves redeemed with the knowledge that their life would be forfeited if they don’t hovering over their head. In such circumstances, can any repentance even be considered genuine by any standards?”

Chew also agreed that the state would need to be careful in determining the criteria or context of the probationary period and have objective and measurable benchmarks in relation to perceptions of reform.

“The impact on the mental health of inmates and families differs substantially, some families are fundamentally broken, traumatised or damaged by the incarceration as the foundation for their family and lives were destroyed with the conviction and sentence. Occurrences of mental breakdown, or inmates living on a knife edge is relatively common,” Chew added.

He worries that a probationary death sentence in Indonesia will become a compromise that fails to address either reform or punishment.

“Trying to sugarcoat it in a probationary system does not solve the fundamental issues around the death penalty, nor would it provide society with the justice expected,” he said.

“And if a person was able to prove their repentance, or was able to show a lesser degree of culpability, would they have suffered unnecessarily on death row for the 10 years?”

“Do they deserve to have a metaphorical gun pointed at them for the 10 years of their incarceration?”

‘Not only is the prisoner killed, but his family is destroyed’

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (30 April 2022)

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/not-only-is-the-prisoner-killed-but-his-family-is-destroyed-20220429-p5ah3v.html

Singapore: Apart from the family members and friends of the prisoners he has represented, Julian McMahon knows about as well as any Australian about the grisly, heartbreaking reality of the death penalty.

The Melbourne barrister was the lawyer for Bali 9 members Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who faced an Indonesian firing squad in 2015, and for Melbourne man Van Tuong Nguyen, who was put to death for drug trafficking by Singapore in 2005.

“The role of the lawyer in those circumstances is to provide steady guidance and not to be overwhelmed by the emotional horror of it all,” McMahon told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

“That comes later. It’s deeply upsetting to participate in. By participating up close you see that not only is the prisoner being killed, but also his family is being destroyed. The ripple effect of an execution is to kill the prisoner, destroy the family and ultimately to harm all those involved in the process.”

The issue of capital punishment has naturally peaked in prominence in Australia over the years when Australians have been caught up in its crosshairs, most notably in those instances in Indonesia and Singapore, and in Malaysia, which executed Perth man Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers, from Sydney, for heroin importation in 1986.

The body of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam was to be cremated in his home town of Ipoh in Malaysia’s Perak state on Friday afternoon, two days after his execution inside Changi prison and more than a decade after he was arrested entering Singapore with 42.72 grams of heroin strapped to his thigh and given a mandatory death sentence.

He was the second inmate to face the gallows in Singapore in the last month. Three others have received execution notices this year – all for drug offences as well - as the city state begins carrying out the death penalty again after a two-year hiatus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the case of a 34-year-old Malaysian man with “borderline intellectual functioning” being hanged by Singapore this week generated worldwide attention.

The ultimate penalty

The resumption of executions has thrust the spotlight back onto the hardline stance on narcotics of Singapore, which shares one of the world’s busiest land crossings with Malaysia and regards the death penalty as a core national policy, crucial to maintaining its status as one of the safest places on the planet.

The island nation is far from alone in Asia in handing out the ultimate penalty for drug trafficking.

The region is a global leader when it comes to capital punishment for drugs crimes. According to the latest report by Harm Reduction International, which assembles figures on the death penalty for drugs, there were 237 known drug-related death sentences handed down worldwide last year and more than 90 per cent of them were in south-east Asia.

Indonesia was the frontrunner with 89, followed by Vietnam with at least 87, Malaysia 15, Laos 14, Singapore 10 and Thailand two.

Yet while Singapore has resumed executions, none of its regional neighbours except Vietnam - where capital punishment is a state secret and numbers are unknown - have actually carried one out in recent years. In 2021, Indonesia went a fifth straight year without delivering one for any offence, Malaysia’s last execution was in 2017 and Thailand hasn’t put a prisoner to death for drugs since 2009, although it did execute a man by lethal injection in 2018 over a robbery resulting in death.
The war on drugs

It’s not to say that those tied up in the drugs game or linked to it have not paid the highest price at the hands of the state. The Philippines abolished the death penalty in 2006 but President Rodrigo Duterte took matters into his own hands after his election in 2016 in a so-called war on drugs that rights groups estimate has led to more than 20,000 drug-related killings by authorities and vigilante groups.

And in countries such as Indonesia, the lack of executions doesn’t equate to progress, said HRI’s human rights lead Ajeng Larasati, who is Indonesian.

“There is a still a huge appetite [by courts] to sentence people to death for drugs in Indonesia,” she said.

In Malaysia, judges are also still prescribing the sentence despite even though they have limited discretion to opt for a life sentence and whipping rather than the death penalty for drug trafficking, under an amendment to the law passed in 2017.

Last October Hairun Jalmani, a 55-year-old single mother of nine in Sabah, was sentenced to death after being found with 113 grams of methamphetamine.

There are at least small signs things might change. A parliamentary committee is expected to this year table a further amendment to the law in Malaysia, where convictions for murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking have had mandatory death sentences.

But Dobby Chew, the Malaysia-based executive coordinator of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, warns the anticipated changes fall a long way short of abolition, as had briefly been foreshadowed by then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad when won election again in 2018.

“From what we understand it’s only going to recommend that mandatory death sentences be replaced with full discretion for judges,” Chew said.

Across the Johor-Singapore Causeway, though, there is no sign anything will change.

In Singapore, drug trafficking, including for more than 15 grams of heroin, is among the offences that carries a mandatory death penalty and all but three of 60 prisoners on death row were there on narcotics offences, according to the Transformative Justice Collective, a Singaporean organisation seeking reform of the city-state’s justice system.

This week, the United Nations human rights office expressed alarm at “a rapid rise in the number of execution notices issues since the beginning of the year in Singapore”.

But Singapore authorities staunchly back the deployment of capital publishment, pointing to its deterrent effect and studies they say demonstrate support by its population.

The Herald and The Age requested an interview with Singapore Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on the use of the death penalty but was directed instead towards statements by the Central Narcotics Bureau and Attorney General’s Chambers defending the execution of Nagaenthran, saying he had been transporting enough heroin to “feed the addiction of 510 drug abusers for a week”.

In response to previous questions, though, the home affairs ministry said: “The death penalty is an important component of Singapore’s criminal justice system. It is applied only after due process of law and with judicial safeguards. We use capital punishment in the most limited of circumstances, to deter the most serious crimes in Singapore’s context, such as murder and drug trafficking, and this has proven effective. In so doing, the larger interest of ensuring our people’s fundamental human right to safety and security, is served.”

In parliament here last month, Shanmugum said the majority of Singaporeans believed the death penalty served as an effective deterrent against serious crimes, reading from preliminary findings of a government study.

The home affairs ministry has said there is evidence that drug traffickers had reduced the amount of drugs they transported because they knew about the death penalty and the thresholds for different drugs, pointing to reductions in the trafficking of opium and cannabis after the introduction of the mandatory death penalty in 1990 and another government study showing “severe legal consequences had limited [offenders’] trafficking behaviour”.

The deterrence argument is one that is furiously contested including by rights groups. “Based on research that has been carried out, there is no reliable evidence of the deterrent effects of the death penalty. It’s not just for drugs, it’s also for other crimes punishable by death,” Larasati said.

The way McMahon sees it, it is also ineffective on another front. It is almost never the drug kingpins themselves who are ensnared.

“The so-called zero tolerance policy only works against the easy target – the intellectually disabled or the drug addicted or the generally incompetent low-level drug mule,” he said.

“That in itself should give pause to reflect on what’s really happening because those people are constantly replaceable by an endless line of foolish or vulnerable young offenders.”

Having experienced Singapore’s system at close quarters, he added: “It is a shocking fact and aberration for a sophisticated state to maintain a mandatory death penalty, particularly for relatively minor drug offences.”

COVID-hit Indonesia orders executions via Zoom, video apps

Source: Public News (23 April 2021)

https://publicnews.in/world/covid-hit-indonesia-orders-executions-via-zoom-video-apps/

Amnesty says virtually 100 inmates sentenced nearly by judges since early final 12 months.

Indonesia has sentenced a number of prisoners to demise over Zoom and different video apps in the course of the coronavirus pandemic in what critics say is an “inhumane” insult to these dealing with the firing squad.

The Southeast Asian nation turned to digital courtroom hearings as COVID-19 restrictions shut down most in-person trials, together with homicide and drug trafficking circumstances, which might carry the demise penalty.

Since early final 12 months, virtually 100 inmates have been condemned to die in Indonesia by judges they might solely see on a tv monitor, in line with Amnesty International.

The Muslim-majority nation has a number of the world’s hardest drug legal guidelines and each Indonesian and international traffickers have been executed, together with the masterminds of Australia’s Bali Nine heroin gang.

This month, 13 members of a trafficking ring, together with three Iranians and a Pakistani, realized via video that they’d be shot for smuggling 400kg (880 kilos) of methamphetamine into Indonesia.

On Wednesday, a Jakarta courtroom sentenced six fighters to demise utilizing a video app over their position in a 2018 jail riot wherein 5 members of Indonesia’s counterterror squad had been killed.

“Virtual hearings degrade the rights of defendants facing death sentences – it’s about someone’s life and death,” mentioned Amnesty International Indonesia director, Usman Hamid.

“The death penalty has always been a cruel punishment. But this online trend adds to the injustice and inhumanity.”

‘Clear disadvantage’

Indonesia has pressed on with the digital hearings even because the variety of executions and demise sentences dropped globally final 12 months, with COVID-19 disrupting many legal proceedings, Amnesty mentioned in its annual capital punishment report this week.

Virtual hearings depart defendants unable to completely take part in circumstances which can be typically interrupted in international locations with poor web connections, together with Indonesia, critics say.

“Virtual platforms … can expose the defendant to significant violations of their fair trial rights and impinge on the quality of the defence,” NGO Harm Reduction International mentioned in a latest report on the demise penalty for drug offences.

Lawyers have complained about being unable to seek the advice of with purchasers attributable to virus restrictions. And households of the accused have typically been barred from accessing hearings that will usually be open to the general public.

“These virtual hearings present a clear disadvantage for defendants,” mentioned Indonesian lawyer Dedi Setiadi.

Setiadi, who defended a number of males sentenced to demise within the methamphetamine case this month, mentioned he would attraction their case on the grounds that digital hearings had been unfair.

Relatives of the defendants weren’t given full entry, the lawyer mentioned.

Death penalty sentences are sometimes commuted to lengthy jail phrases in Indonesia and an in-person trial may need caused a much less extreme verdict, in line with Setiadi, who described his purchasers as low-level gamers within the smuggling ring.

“The verdict could have been different if the judges had talked directly with the defendants and seen their expressions,” he mentioned. “A Zoom hearing is less personal.”

Indonesia’s Supreme Court, which ordered on-line hearings in the course of the pandemic, didn’t reply to requests for remark.

But the nation’s judicial fee instructed AFP news company that it has requested the highest courtroom to think about returning to in-person trials for severe offences, together with circumstances with capital punishment.

There are almost 500 folks, together with many foreigners, awaiting execution in Indonesia, the place condemned prisoners are marched to a jungle clearing, tied to a stake and shot.

Drug Smugglers Are Being Sentenced to Death via Zoom

Source: Vice (7 April 2021)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgzejk/drug-smugglers-are-being-sentenced-to-death-via-zoom

Courts in Indonesia and Singapore are using video calls to sentence to death people convicted of drug trafficking, according to drug harm reduction experts.

Harm Reduction International (HRI), which published its annual report into global drug war death penalties on Wednesday, told VICE World News that 19 drug offenders were sentenced to death in Indonesia during virtual hearings held on video apps such as Zoom and WhatsApp between March 2020 and March this year. Two people convicted of drug trafficking were handed death sentences over Zoom calls in Singapore last year.

The report said use of video calls for trial hearings and to administer death sentences introduced due to COVID-19 constituted a “significant violation of their fair trial rights”.

Lawyers for defendants said the video conference calls, which featured defendants speaking from prison, were often prone to interruption and “freezing” due to bad internet connections. Indonesia has some of the lowest internet speeds in the world.

In addition, they said the online format meant they could not properly consult with defendants, and that proceedings were not always be witnessed by the general public, including family members. A number of those sentenced to death were foreign nationals, some of whom who had no access to court interpreters. Lawyers also said Zoom calls were lacking in terms of security and confidentiality.

“We cannot record the process, nor take screenshots or photos unless we get the judges’ permission. Virtual hearings mean the whole process is not open for the public because the link is distributed limitedly,” lawyers who defended some of the traffickers told HRI.

The virtual death sentences in Indonesia include the case of three Malaysians, Kumar Atchababoo, Rajandran Ramasamy, and Sanggat Ramasamy, who were sentenced to death via an online video call in November after being convicted of attempting to smuggle 28.6kg of methamphetamine into Indonesia last January. A defence lawyer said he would be appealing the decision as the online trial meant he could not communicate with his client. In February a Pakistani national and a Yemeni national were handed death sentences for methamphetamine smuggling after an online Zoom trial and sentencing.

In Singapore last May, Punithan Genasan, a 37-year old from Malaysia, was sentenced to death by hanging via a sentencing hearing held on Zoom. Genasan, who had denied the charges, was sentenced after being found guilty of a heroin smuggling charge dating back to 2011.

“The use of virtual platforms to conduct criminal proceedings, especially those which result in a death sentence, can expose the defendant to significant violations of their fair trial rights and impinge on the quality of the defence,” said the report.

As of October 2020, according to the report, there were 355 people on death row in Indonesia, of which 214 were convicted for drug offences – a 29 percent increase from 2019. Indonesia has a reputation for harsh treatment of its addicted drug users, and has seen a clampdown on its tourists drug scene since 2019.

The report found that despite the COVID pandemic there was a rise in death sentences handed out for drug offences. In 2020, courts sentenced 213 people to death for drug offences, an increase of 16 percent from the previous year, with Vietnam (78) and Indonesia (77) representing three quarters of all death sentences given for drugs. In June five people, including a mother and her daughter, were sentenced to death for their role in smuggling 26.4kg of heroin into Vietnam from Laos.

However, the number of executions for drug offences tumbled last year by 75 percent, due to the pandemic and also a near moratorium on drug crime executions in Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s top executioners for drug offences for the past decade. There were 30 confirmed executions for drug offences in 2020, down from 116 in 2019. All of the executions took place in 3 countries, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

One case involved an Egyptian truck driver who was arrested with a stash of amphetamine hidden in a truck he was driving transporting in Saudi Arabia in 2017. Human rights groups said he was tortured so badly he missed two court hearings and was denied legal representation. His family wasn’t informed of his arrest, conviction and execution, in January last year, which they found out about from fellow prisoners and a newspaper article.

Data on the death penalty for drug offences is “grossly insufficient” according to HRI, partly due to a lack of information on executions in China and Vietnam, with both nations reported to routinely execute people for drug offences. Vietnam considers the death penalty a matter of state secrecy.

The report said 35 countries still retain the death penalty for drug offences. There are at least 3,000 people currently on death row for drug offences worldwide.

“The fact that countries continued to sentence people to death for drug offences amidst a global pandemic is abhorrent and emblematic of an overly punitive approach to drug control. Too many countries remain reluctant to move away from capital punishment and their false belief that the death penalty deters drug offences,” said Naomi Burke-Shyne, executive director at HRI.

“While the record low number of executions for drug offences is certainly welcome, executions are only the tip of the iceberg. Executions are the most visible part of a hugely problematic system, characterised by human rights violations.”

There were no drug offence executions in the US in 2020. Although in February last year former President Donald Trump praised countries, including China, which impose the death penalty for drug offences, saying, erroneously, that “states with a very powerful death penalty on drug dealers don’t have a drug problem.” Incumbent President Joe Biden has pledged to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level. In December 2020, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted its eighth resolution calling for a moratorium of the death penalty, with record-breaking support from 123 countries.

Death penalty: as world executes fewer prisoners, Singapore, Vietnam and Thailand are killing more

Source: South China Morning Post

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3005583/death-penalty-world-executes-fewer-prisoners-singapore-vietnam

The world may be turning its back on the death penalty, according to report by Amnesty International, but Singapore, Vietnam and Thailand are going in the other direction.

Globally, the number of executions has hit its lowest level in a decade, having fallen to 690 last year from 993 in 2017, according to the human rights watchdog’s 2018 death penalty report. While Southeast Asia as a region is broadly in line with that trend – with seven of the 10 Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) members carrying out no executions last year – the other three states are carrying out more.

Vietnam is the region’s most prolific executioner. It executed 85 people in 2018, more than any other Asean member. It also handed down 122 death sentences, meaning it now has more than 600 prisoners on death row. Meanwhile, Thailand carried out its first hanging since 2009 and Singapore hanged 13 people – its most since 2003. The Thailand execution was of a murderer; in Singapore most of the executions were of drug offenders. Vietnam, which uses lethal injections, executed people for a variety of offences, including murder, drug crimes and national security violations.

Amnesty International’s secretary general Kumi Naidoo said despite the fall in executions worldwide some states were “shamefully determined to buck the trend”.

Singaporean anti-death penalty activist Kirsten Han said the global trend made it even “more disappointing” that Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam were “still clinging on to this archaic, cruel punishment”.

“In 2018 we have seen more executions in Singapore than for a long time, even though there is a lack of evidence that it’s more effective at deterring crime than any other punishment,” she said.

And Amnesty International Malaysia’s executive director Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu said that despite the global trend, campaigners still had their work cut out. She pointed out that the
Philippines, which abolished the death penalty in 2006, was now looking to restore it.

“Efforts should be intensified, not lessened. Countries that are pushing for the death penalty are using political populism to retain or reintroduce it, despite research proving that it is not an effective deterrent. Politicians and leaders use the death penalty to show they want to be tough on crime, despite it not impacting the crime rate.”

Her view was echoed by legal adviser and human rights activist Michelle Yesudas, who said that despite the progress it was disheartening to see some nations “taking a hardline stance on retribution and executions”. “As Singapore chalks up increased executions, Brunei, an abolitionist country in practice for more than 20 years has now included stoning to death as punishment and the Philippines is considering the reinstatement of the death penalty. These moves ride on a wave of anti-crime rhetoric and the false idea that the death penalty is a deterrent and these narratives must be countered.”

For anti-death penalty campaigners, one of the highlights of last year was a commitment by
Malaysia to do away with capital punishment.

However, the former Malaysian representative to the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Edmund Bon, noted that so far no other Asean nation had shown signs of following its lead.

Last May, Malaysian voters unseated the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition in favour of the more progressive Pakatan Harapan, which set about a series of legal reforms including a moratorium on the death penalty. The government, however, has not yet decided what will happen to the 1,275 prisoners already on death row.

Globally, China remains the world’s most prolific executioner. Amnesty International’s report said it believed the number of executions to be in the thousands, but it could not give an exact figure as the data was a classified state secret. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Iraq accounted for 78 per cent of the 690 executions in 2018. At least 98 of the executions were for drug-related offences.

There were 136 executions in the Asia-Pacific, up from 93 in 2017, although this increase was attributed mainly to Vietnam disclosing a figure – something it rarely does.

By the end of 2018, 106 countries had abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes and 142 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

In October last year, Singapore hanged Prabu Pathmanathan, who was convicted of drug trafficking despite appeals from the Malaysian government.

Human rights groups claimed that sentence was carried out in breach of due process.

In 2016, Singapore executed another Malaysian, Kho Jabing, for killing a construction worker. In the same year, law and home affairs minister K. Shanmugam slammed activists for “romanticising individuals involved in the drug trade”.

The minister said capital punishment would remain part of Singapore’s comprehensive anti-drug framework that includes rehabilitating users.

More recently, Singapore hanged Malaysian Michael anak Garing, who was convicted of murder in 2015.

15 foreigners among 48 handed death penalty in Indonesia last year: Amnesty

Source: Jakarta Post (11 April 2019)

https://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2019/04/11/15-foreigners-among-48-handed-death-penalty-last-year-amnesty.html

Indonesia sentenced to death 48 people last year, including 15 foreigners convicted of drug crimes, according to the latest global report on capital punishment by human rights organization Amnesty International.

In its annual report released on Wednesday, Amnesty explained that of the 48 death sentences, 39 were in drug-related cases, eight were for murder and one for terrorism.

In 2017, 10 foreigners were among 47 individuals sentenced to death.

At least 308 convicts were on death row by the end of last year, awaiting their execution without a clear date.

Despite its stance on capital punishment, Indonesia has positioned itself as a human rights pioneer in Southeast Asia. But in 2018, the country observed a moratorium on executions for the second year in a row after the government under President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo executed 18 inmates convicted of drug-related offenses, including foreigners, in three batches between 2015 and 2016.

Nonetheless, Amnesty’s records show that Indonesia has not taken any steps toward abolishing the death penalty, much to the frustration of activists who point out that Indonesia is an initiator of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The country is currently also seeking a fifth term on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

“As a pioneer of human rights in Southeast Asia, Indonesia actually has a wider chance to progress from the moratorium [to abolition],” said Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid. “It is ironic that Indonesia has yet to take any formal steps to abolish the death penalty when the global trends show positive progress. Neighboring Malaysia has even announced an initiative to reform the punishment.”

Amnesty’s report shows a global decrease in executions from 2017 to 2018, down by 31 percent, from 993 to 690 executions – the lowest number in the past decade. The number of death sentences globally also slightly dropped from 2,591 in 2017 to 2,531 in 2018.

Known proponents of capital punishment have even started to abandon it last year. For instance, Gambia declared a moratorium on executions, while Burkina Faso abolished capital punishment for general crimes and Malaysia announced a death penalty reform after previously decided to halt executions.

Usman said that eliminating the death penalty could level up Indonesia's diplomatic efforts to save roughly 188 Indonesian citizens on death row abroad.

“Well, how can Indonesia convince other countries to save its citizens from capital punishment if Indonesia maintains a legal basis to practice inhumane punishments at home?"

Usman urged the House of Representatives to push the government into scrapping the death sentence in the Criminal Code (KUHP).

Lawmaker Charles Honoris of the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), who attended the report's launch, said that capital punishment was ineffective in curbing crimes, particularly drug offenses, given that the number of drug-related cases continued to increase in the past few years.

However, he shifted the responsibility to the government and the President, saying that the House was divided over the issue, with few lawmakers daring to openly voice their support for abolishing capital punishment. Therefore, the political will of the President was “key to starting the process of repealing the death penalty”.

The government softened its stance in the past few years by recategorizing the death penalty in the Criminal Code revision bill as an "alternative punishment" that could be commuted to life imprisonment if the convict showed good behavior. However, the draft’s deliberation has progressed at a snail's pace. (ipa)

Capital Punishment, Human Rights, and Indonesia's Chance for the Moral High Ground

Source: The Diplomat (3 April 2018)

https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/capital-punishment-human-rights-and-indonesias-chance-for-the-moral-high-ground/

On Sunday March 18, Saudi Arabian authorities beheaded Indonesian migrant worker Zaini Misrin without providing diplomatic notice to the relevant Indonesian authorities.

The execution was carried out undeterred by repeated requests from Indonesian President Joko Widodo for clemency. Zaini was executed in spite of strong evidence suggesting he was coerced into confessing to killing his employer and that his own translator was complicit in this coercion.

There are fears that more Indonesian migrant workers may be executed in Saudi Arabia. While a large number of Indonesian citizens are on death row in Saudi Arabia, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated there are two specific cases involving Indonesian female migrant workers that have been listed as critical.

Zaini is not the first Indonesian to be beheaded in the Gulf state. In 2011, the execution of an Indonesian migrant worker prompted Indonesia to recall its ambassador and to begin a moratorium halting the placement of Indonesian migrant workers in the informal sector in Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the execution of two mentally ill Indonesian women migrant domestic workers prompted the Indonesian government to extend the moratorium to 21, mainly Middle Eastern, countries.

Despite the moratoriums, which have been widely criticized by migrant rights organizations for being a reactionary move that violates a number of human rights, thousands of Indonesians continue to be employed in Saudi Arabia as domestic workers, migrating through irregular channels and living without any of the legal and social protections that documented migrant workers enjoy.

The latest beheading sparked waves of protest within Indonesia and across the globe. Swathes of outraged activists have called the execution a blatant violation of human rights. The framing of the capital punishment as a human rights violation, however, is made difficult by the fact that none of the core international human rights treaties explicitly forbid capital punishment.

The use of the death penalty is only forbidden in an Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and this optional protocol, with only 85 state parties, has not come close to achieving universal ratification. In spite of a number of nonbinding resolutions issued by the United Nations General Assembly calling for its abolition, capital punishment continues to largely be understood as a legally permissible exception to the right to life.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture is one of the few human rights treaties that Saudi Arabia has ratified. Although the committee that implements the convention has been notably inconsistent in its stance on the death penalty, the committee in its 2016 concluding observations on the report of Saudi Arabia encouraged the state to establish a moratorium on executions and to commute all existing death sentences. With 20 Indonesian citizens currently on death row in Saudi Arabia, Jakarta has a vested interest in seeing the recommendations of the committee implemented.

Indonesia fights tirelessly to secure clemency for its citizens facing the death penalty abroad through diplomatic negotiations, legal channels, and even by paying blood money or ransoms where possible. Domestically, however, Indonesia continues to implement capital punishment, executing Indonesian and foreign citizens alike and defending its right to do so with arguments of national sovereignty.

During the 2017 Universal Periodic Review in Geneva, where Indonesia’s human rights track record was reviewed by 103 states, capital punishment was the main human rights issue that came into the spotlight with 30 individual states recommending Indonesia abolish the death penalty or place a moratorium on its use.

The Indonesian National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) contends the Indonesian government is losing the moral justification to protect its citizens on death row abroad when the state continues to carry out executions at home. The results of extensive monitoring carried out by Komnas Perempuan regarding women facing the death penalty revealed that the majority of women on death row are victims of gender-based violence and that female domestic workers are targeted by international drug smuggling and human trafficking syndicates, unknowingly made into drug mules by perpetrators who exploit the women’s layered vulnerabilities.

An important finding of the Commission shows that the death penalty and the extensive periods of time that people spend on death row in Indonesia have economic, physical, and psychological effects on the convicted person and their families that are torturous and inhumane. These findings of the Commission are in line with the statement of the Committee Against Torture that prolonged time on death row could amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Komnas Perempuan notes that currently in Indonesia there are a number of former women migrant workers who have been sentenced to death despite indications that they are victims of human trafficking. Filipino national Mary Jane Veloso and Indonesian Merry Utami, imprisoned in 2010 and 2001 respectively, are two women currently on death row in Indonesia. Both of these women are former migrant workers and they are both indicated to be victims of human trafficking whose progress through the judicial system has been markedly unjust.

The commissioner of Komnas Perempuan’s Migrant Worker Task Force, Thaufik Zulbahary, explained, “Migrant workers, especially women migrant domestic workers are one of the most vulnerable groups in society… they are prone to experiencing human rights violations at every stage of migration.” To effectively work at reducing these vulnerabilities and improving outcomes for migrant workers, international advocacy — including pushing for global ratification of the Convention on Migrant Workers — must be accompanied by grassroots initiatives aimed at improving the fulfillment of migrant workers’ human rights.

One such grass roots initiative is TKI Bijak, a program that is operating in West Java, Indonesia, disseminating information to prospective migrant workers about proper recruitment procedures and practical information regarding destination countries and human rights concerns for each respective country. Through initiatives like this, prospective migrant workers are equipped with the means to make educated decisions about their deployment and the risk of human rights violations are minimized.

On the international stage it is essential that the discourse surrounding the death penalty stops focusing on capital punishment as an issue of state sovereignty and a legitimate exception on the right to life. The various international human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies, especially the Committee Against Torture, have the responsibility to take a stronger stance in opposing the death penalty and take the lead in shifting the international discourse to focus on the right to life as the ultimate, nonderogable human right that transcends notions of sovereignty.

While the international community slowly works toward global abolition of capital punishment, states should at a minimum observe the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. This document, published by the Economic and Social Council in a 1984 resolution, states in the fourth and fifth points that capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts. The safeguard further states that capital punishment may only be imposed pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after legal process that gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, including adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings.

It is estimated that there are around 4.5 million Indonesian migrant workers currently working overseas. As a country that prides itself on endeavoring to provide the highest possible protections for its citizens abroad, Indonesia in a purely pragmatic sense has a vested interest in leading by example and looking to abolish the death penalty or at the very least commute the death sentence for victims who are indicated to be victims of human trafficking or have been denied a fair trial. The domestic cessation of the implementation of capital punishment is an important first step that will give added legitimacy to Indonesia’s attempts to seek clemency for its citizens on death row abroad.

Jack Britton is a translator, researcher, and writer currently embedded with the Indonesian National Commission on Violence against Women (Komnas Perempuan) in Jakarta, Indonesia.

With Death Penalty at Home, Can Indonesia Save Its Citizens Abroad?

Source: Jakarta Globe (22 March 2018)

http://jakartaglobe.id/news/death-penalty-home-can-indonesia-save-citizens-abroad/

Jakarta. The government sent a protest note to Saudi Arabia on Monday (19/03), after an Indonesian national was beheaded in Mecca. Saudi authorities did not inform Indonesia that its citizen would be executed.

Zaini Misrin, a 53-year-old man from Bangkalan in East Java's island of Madura, was a migrant worker convicted of the murder of his Saudi employer. He was executed on Sunday.

"The Indonesian government did not receive any notification prior to the execution of Zaini Misrin," citizen protection and legal aid director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lalu Muhammad Iqbal, said during a press conference in Jakarta.

Although the kingdom has no regulatory obligation to issue such notifications, since the two countries are in friendly relations, Indonesia should have been officially apprised of the decision, he said.

With nearly 200 Indonesians facing capital punishment abroad, the government has been making considerable efforts to stay their execution.

However, despite huge opposition domestically and on the international stage, and despite its non-permanent seat at the United Nation High Commission of Human Rights, Indonesia itself implements the death penalty. This, in the eyes of many, renders inconclusive the country's attempts to save its own citizens from the cruel and unusual punishment.

Since 2011, 583 Indonesians have been sentenced to death abroad. The executions of 392 have been stayed. There are 188 ongoing cases in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, China and the United Arab Emirates.

Most of the cases involve migrant workers, but there are also drug trafficking convicts, especially in Malaysia.

The Case of Zaini

Zaini's journey to Saudi Arabia began in 1992, when he started working as a private driver for Abdullah bin Umar as-Sindi. He then came back to Indonesia, and returned to work for the same employer in 1996.

Zaini was arrested by Saudi authorities in July 2004, on charges of murdering As-Sindi. He was convicted in November 2008.

In accordance with Muslim law, in cases of killing and wounding, Saudi Arabia applies qisas, or the law of retaliation — a person who has injured another is to be penalized to a similar degree, unless he or she is pardoned by the victim's family.

Indonesia was granted consular access to Zaini only in 2008. The delay, according to Lalu, was caused by imperfections in the previous protection system for Indonesian citizens abroad.

To save Zaini, the government appointed two lawyers in 2011, while presidents Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Joko "Jokowi" Widodo requested Saudi Arabia that he be granted clemency. Jokowi raised the issue three times with King Salman bin Abdulaziz. So did Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi during her meetings with the Saudi counterpart, Adel Jubeir.

Zaini's family came to Saudi Arabia with a plea for pardon from As-Sindi's family. To no avail.

The Indonesian government requested a case review in January 2017. It was rejected. Another appeal was filed in January this year, and the case was stiil ongoing at the time of Zaini's death.

"We have summoned the Saudi ambassador to express our disapproval over the execution and the fact that it took place despite the ongoing legal process," Lalu said.

According to Jakarta-based Migrant Care, Zaini's testimony reveals he confessed the murder under pressure and intimidation by Saudi authorities.

"During his trial, Zaini Misrin had no neutral and impartial translator," the organization said in a statement.

Pardon

Under the principle of qisas, offenders can receive forgiveness from their victim's closest relatives. This in 2017 saved the life of Masamah, another Indonesian migrant worker in Saudi Arabia, who was convicted of murdering her employer's child in 2009.

An alternative punishment to qisas is diya or "blood money" — the financial compensation paid to the heirs of a victim.

In April 2014, the Indonesian government paid 7 million riyal ($1.9 million) to free Satinah Binti Jumadi Ahmad from death row in Saudi Arabia.

Satinah, a domestic helper from Ungaran, Central Java, was convicted of killing her Saudi employer in 2007. She said she acted in self-defense.

According to Lalu, in Zaini's case, the victim's family was not willing to exercise its right to pardon or diya.

More Protection

To offer more protection to Indonesian citizens working abroad, the House of Representatives passed a new law in October.

The 2017 Law on Migrant Workers replaced the 2004 Law on the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers. It establishes a framework to improve cooperation between the central government and local authorities in the migrants' places of origin, and guarantees more assistance to them, including insurance and competency training.

Director general for labor supervision at the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration, Maruli Apul Hasoloan, said during Monday's conference that all prospective migrant workers will be informed about their rights and mechanisms to protect them, as well as the existing regulations on labor in their receiving countries.

The government is now also particularly careful about making sure that Indonesians willing to work abroad have all their documents and permits cleared before they leave.

"According to our statistics, 92 percent of the cases against Indonesian migrant workers are related to those who left the country without following the necessary legal procedures," said Hermono, secretary of the National Board for Placement and Protection of Indonesian Overseas Workers (BNP2TKI).

Solutions sought to abolish death penalty

Source: The Jakarta Post (22 December 2017)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/12/22/solutions-sought-abolish-death-penalty.html

Civil society in Southeast Asia must work on more engagement, smarter solutions and data transparency in order to stem the tide of regression in efforts to abolish the death penalty in the region.

"The kind of change we want, we need to make it happen," international law expert Seree Nonthasoot said in a speech in Jakarta on Thursday at the Regional Conference on the Situation of the Death Penalty in ASEAN held by the Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in ASEAN (CAPDA).

He proposed several things for the fight to abolish the death penalty, such as using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to attract ASEAN's attention. "Everyone in ASEAN loves SDGs. Goal 16 on access to justice will give you ammunition," he said. "Electrocution, gas, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad: Are these techniques for sustainability?"

Another way is by demanding transparency for penitentiaries.

"What we need is the numbers of prisoners on death row, the types of crimes carrying the death penalty, the means of commuting the death penalty, legal assistance and how many [death row inmates] are disabled," he said.

Nonthasoot highlighted the challenges that human rights defenders face in a region where only two countries have abolished capital punishment: Cambodia and the Philippines. He said the death penalty remains a sensitive topic.

"The only consensus we got is that we are going to study the treatment of those who have already been convicted [and sentenced to] the death penalty," he said, adding that he expect to launch the study in 2018.

In the past five years, more than 40 people have been executed in ASEAN, with many more waiting their turn on death row.

However, a worrying development in the region is the regression of the Philippines. The Philippine House of Representatives approved in March a proposal to reinstate capital punishment as part of President Rodrigo Duterte's main campaign promise to end crime and corruption.

Since Duterte took office in 2016, local media reported more than 8,000 deaths in his war on drugs.

CAPDA founder Rafendi Djamin called the development "ironic" considering that Manila was an exemplary case in ASEAN.

"It became a part of the international human rights commitment on the protocol where the death penalty is not part of the law anymore," he said. "But in the course of the year [...] we have had to make the Philippines a priority country for our work."

Rajiv Narayan, commissioner at the International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP), argued: "It's not enough to make a country an abolitionist; there are trends against it. We have to increase respect and protection for the right to life."

Narayan, who opened Thursday's conference, noted that a big part of his work with the ICDP to increase protection for the right to life involves engaging various countries and mapping out abolitionist and retentionist practices.

The primary rationale given in favor of the death penalty has always been that it deters crime. An official from the Indonesian Law and Human Rights Ministry, Mualimin Abdi, defended that rationale in Indonesia's case.

"The Indonesian Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the offenses punishable by death in Indonesia have met the standards of most serious crimes and that capital punishment is necessary for deterrence and that the reason is justified," he said.

"However the implementation of the death penalty is minimized in an effort to realize both interests of justice and fairness."

Indonesia resumed using the death sentence in 2013 following a four-year moratorium. In 2015, four people were executed, while at least 215 people remain on death row, according to CAPDA.

Indonesia’s Contradictory Death Penalty Rhetoric

Source: Human Rights Watch (11 October 2017)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/11/indonesias-contradictory-death-penalty-rhetoric

Indonesia’s government on Tuesday marked World Day Against the Death Penalty by issuing a self-serving and contradictory statement on its death penalty policy.

Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly reaffirmed the government won’t seek to abolish the death penalty, but would pursue a “win-win solution” designed to appease both death penalty supporters and opponents. That might include mandatory judicial reviews of death penalty judgments and possible sentence commutation for death row prisoners.

Indonesia ended a four-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty in March 2013, and President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has made the execution of convicted drug traffickers a signature policy issue. Since Jokowi took office in 2014, 18 convicted drug traffickers were executed in 2015 and 2016 – the majority citizens of other countries. Jokowi has routinely rejected their governments’ calls for clemency, citing national sovereignty. The government’s apparent newfound flexibility on its death penalty policy, including a temporary suspension of executions in 2017, was linked by the attorney general to its ambitions to secure United Nations member support to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Recent evidence uncovered by the ombudsman of “maladministration” by the Indonesian government in denying the legal rights of a Nigerian citizen executed for drug trafficking in July 2016 underscore the need for the death penalty’s abolition. But Laoly’s claims of a more flexible death penalty policy are contradicted by Indonesia’s performance last month during the UN Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia’s rights record. Jakarta rejected recommendations by UN member countries that the government enhance safeguards on the use of the death penalty, including adequate and early legal representation for defendants and not executing people with mental illness. It also rejected a recommendation to review all cases with a view to commuting death sentences or at least ensuring “fair trials that fully comply with international standards.”

Jokowi’s government should stop its cynical efforts to use the cruel and irreversible punishment of the death penalty as a bargaining chip for a Security Council seat. Instead it should publicly recognize that the death penalty has no place in a right-respecting country and immediately move toward abolition.

Indonesia ombudsman finds rights violations in execution of Nigerian

Source: Reuters (28 July 2017)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-execution-idUSKBN1AD10O

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The office of Indonesia's ombudsman has unearthed evidence of rights violations in the execution of a Nigerian drug convict last year, an official said on Friday.

Humphrey Jefferson was still seeking clemency from President Joko Widodo at the time of his execution, which meant he still had a chance of being pardoned, said Ninik Rahayu, an official of the ombudsman's office who is overseeing the case.

Jefferson, sentenced to death in 2004, had also sought a second judicial review of his case by the Supreme Court, but his request was denied by the Central Jakarta court without proper explanation, Rahayu said, in what she called maladministration.

If the court had taken on Jefferson's case, his execution would have had to be delayed until its final verdict.

"When one is given the death penalty, all of the procedures must be done according to the laws," Rahayu told reporters at her office.

"The rights of the person must be fully met before his sentence is carried out. You can't bring back the dead to life."

Rahayu also said the Attorney General's office, responsible for conducting the execution, had not followed rules requiring it to give Jefferson and his family 72 hours' notice of the event.

The execution was done according to law, said Muhammad Rum, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office.

Telephone calls to the Central Jakarta court to seek comment were not answered.

A Supreme Court spokesman, Judge Suhadi, who goes by one name like many Indonesians, did not comment on the specific case but said the court did not generally grant a second review.

Jefferson, two other Nigerians and an Indonesian were the only prisoners to face the firing squad on July 29 last year, from a group of 14 picked initially.

The delay was due to a "comprehensive review", said Attorney General H. Muhammad Prasetyo.

The executions were the second round under Widodo, whose predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, imposed a moratorium on the death penalty.

Many international bodies and foreign governments have urged Indonesia to pardon those on death row. They have also called on Indonesia to abolish capital punishment, but the calls have gone unheeded.

Widodo has told law enforcement officers not to hesitate in shooting drug traffickers who resist arrest in the war on drugs.

The ombudsman's office has given government bodies 60 days to respond to its findings. But its limited powers mean it can only take its recommendations to Widodo in cases of failure to respond.

Jefferson's lawyer, Ricky Gunawan, said he planned to use the ombudsman's findings to file a civil lawsuit against the office of the attorney-general, seeking compensation for his client.

"We call on the Attorney General's office to stop the preparation of any future death execution ... and treat the convicts with respect and have their rights fulfilled," Gunawan said.

Reporting by Gayatri Suroyo; Editing by Ed Davies and Clarence Fernandez

Indonesian Death Penalty Moratorium Needs Presidential Push

Source: Human Rights Watch (29 March 2017)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/29/indonesian-death-penalty-moratorium-needs-presidential-push

Indonesia’s President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo dropped fresh hints this week that he supports reinstatement of the official moratorium on the death penalty, but only if the Indonesian public supports the move. “Why not? But I must ask my people. If my people say OK, they say yes, I will start to prepare [to reinstate a moratorium].”

We’ve been here before. In November 2016, Jokowi suggested the Indonesian government might emulate European governments by moving toward abolishing the death penalty. At that time, Jokowi said his government was “very open to options” on death penalty alternatives, without elaborating. But since then, neither he nor his government have taken any serious steps to change Indonesia’s policy. On the contrary, in recent weeks Indonesia seems poised to execute up to six convicted drug traffickers from foreign countries on the prison island of Nusa Kambangan.

The gap between Jokowi’s rights-respecting rhetoric and the absence of policy measures to back it up is unsurprising. Jokowi has a well-earned reputation for talking the talk on human rights policies, but consistently failing to deliver. He’s stalled on accountability plans for past gross human rights violations, such as the massacres of 1965-66; failed to abolish discriminatory laws fostering religious intolerance; and lacked follow-through on promises of accountability for abuses in Papua.

Indonesia ended a four-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty in March 2013, and Jokowi has made the execution of convicted drug traffickers a signature issue of his presidency. Jokowi has justified using the death penalty by saying drug traffickers on death row have “destroyed the future of the nation.” In December 2014, he told students that the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers was an “important shock therapy” for anyone who violates Indonesia’s drug laws. Since taking office in 2014, his government has executed 18 convicted drug traffickers, though no executions have taken place this year. The majority of those executed have been citizens of other countries, and Jokowi rejected their government’s calls for clemency, citing national sovereignty.

Jokowi should not hinge his action on so fundamental an issue as capital punishment on the vagaries of popular support. Instead, he should take this opportunity to demonstrate leadership and bolster his rhetorical support for a death penalty moratorium with real action. Indecision is no reason to impose an inherently cruel punishment.

Indonesia reaffirms use of death penalty despite criticism

Source: Jakarta Post (1 February 2017)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/02/01/indonesia-reaffirms-use-of-death-penalty-despite-criticism.html

Attorney General M. Prasetyo said on Wednesday that Indonesia would continue to impose the death penalty on those guilty of extraordinary crimes, including drug trafficking.

“We never claimed to have stopped executions,” Prasetyo told lawmakers from the House of Representatives’ legal affairs and human rights commission during a hearing on Wednesday.

Prasetyo explained that executions had been put on hold while Indonesia lobbied for international support to become a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

“We are still implementing the death penalty, but are focusing on the greater interest for the time being. The government is trying to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council,” he emphasized. (dan)

Indonesia's president Joko Widodo hints at abolishing death penalty

Source: The Guardian (5 November 2016)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/05/indonesias-president-joko-widodo-hints-at-abolishing-death-penalty

Indonesia’s president Joko Widodo has indicated his country wants to move towards abolishing the death penalty.

Speaking ahead of a three-day visit to Australia, Widodo told the ABC he thinks Indonesians will change their minds on execution laws as citizens in Europe had done in the past.

“We are very open to options,” he said.

“I don’t know when but we want to move towards that direction.”

The execution in Indonesia last year of Australian drug traffickers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran strained relations between the two countries. Widodo’s trip to Australia will be his first bilateral visit since Canberra withdrew its ambassador to Indonesia in protest against the executions.

“Indonesia has regulations, Indonesia has its own law, which still allows execution. That’s what I complied to,” the president told the ABC.

“We also listened to what other countries had to say. But again, I have to follow the provisions of the law applicable in Indonesia.”

But Widodo, who’s also known as Jokowi, also stressed the importance of rebuilding trust between Australia and Indonesia.

“The most important thing is definitely to have trust in between the country leaders, and then the relationship between the citizens,” he said.

Widodo also stressed the importance of the two nations working together to address the thousands of asylum seekers believed to be stranded in Indonesia.

“If we could sit down and talk through this, find the solution together I think in the future we’ll have a much better relationship,” he said.

Widodo arrives in Sydney on Sunday and is scheduled to address parliament in Canberra on Monday.

Australia should take a stand on Veloso

Source: Lowy Interpreter (23 September 2016)

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/09/23/Australia-should-take-a-stand-on-Veloso.aspx

In April last year, Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were among eight people executed by firing squad in Indonesia. Their deaths brought the issue of capital punishment to the forefront of Australia’s consciousness and reignited debate over the practice on a global scale.

The only woman in the group scheduled for execution that day, Philippines national Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso, was given a last-minute reprieve in order to give testimony against a person accused of human and drug trafficking in the Philippines. Her death sentence has not been permanently commuted and could be reinstated. Veloso’s case attracted significant support in the Philippines and Indonesia, with many protesting her innocence and claiming that Veloso was an unwitting drug mule and victim of human trafficking.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has been subject to intense international scrutiny in recent months due to his promotion of vigilante attacks and extra-judicial killings of suspected drug offenders. Duterte was elected in May promising a war on drugs and has duly delivered, with over 3000 people killed on the streets since.

Earlier this month, Indonesian President Joko Widodo said that Duterte intervened in Veloso’s case, telling Jokowi:‘Please go ahead if you want to execute her.’ Duterte’s spokesman denied this claim and said Duterte merely advised Indonesia to follow its own laws in the case.

Duterte’s intervention, regardless of exactly how it was phrased, was arguably out of kilter with the general expectation that governments seek clemency for their nationals facing execution in other countries. It leaves Veloso in greater uncertainty as to what outcome she can hope for, although the Philippines Justice Secretary believes it is still possible she may be spared and perhaps even released.

Both Indonesia and the Philippines have adopted hard-line stances against drug crime which allow the punishment of death for convicted drug offenders (formally, through the courts, in Indonesia and now informally, on the streets, in the Philippines).

Although international human rights law aims for the total abolition of capital punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that, where capital punishment is still practiced, it should be used only for the ‘most serious crimes.’ In 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee condemned the country’s continued use of the death penalty for drug trafficking as not meeting the threshold of ‘most serious crimes'. The committee instead recommended a review of legislation ‘to ensure that crimes involving narcotics are not amenable to the death penalty.’

Australia’s position on capital punishment has been for some time that in all cases it is a violation of human rights and should be abolished. It offends the right to life, respected under international human rights law. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Australia should also decry the death penalty as a form of torture, due to the methods used and the inherent terror in awaiting one’s own scheduled killing.

As was clear in the case of Chan and Sukumaran, Australia’s extremely selective advocacy on the behalf of people subject to the death penalty weakens its clemency campaigns for individual Australians at risk of execution. Australia’s abolitionist advocacy must be less partial and more principled if it is to be persuasive.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop initiated a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty following her strong but unsuccessful advocacy for clemency on behalf of Sukumaran and Chan. Its terms of reference sought to improve Australia’s capacity to advocate effectively for death penalty abolition. To the credit of the inquiry committee, its report recommended the establishment of a whole-of-government strategy for abolition of the death penalty. It further recommended:

...intervening to oppose death sentences and executions of foreign nationals, especially in cases where there are particular human rights concerns, such as unfair trials, or when juveniles or the mentally ill are exposed to the death penalty

Julie Bishop took such an approach in July this year, when she reiterated Australia’s opposition to capital punishment in all cases in advance of Indonesia’s most recent round of executions.

Should Indonesia decide to return Veloso to death row and move towards execution, it would be especially important for Australia to advocate on her behalf. At the moment, Australia is vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy, including from Indonesia. The committee’s recommendation for broader and less partial advocacy against the death penalty will enable Australia to demonstrate the strength of its abolitionist stance. In turn, Australia may hope to more effectively influence other states to abandon capital punishment in law and practice.

Widodo clarifies Duterte statement on Mary Jane Veloso – report

Source: GMA (16 September 2016)

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/581647/news/pinoyabroad/widodo-clarifies-duterte-statement-on-mary-jane-veloso-report

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has clarified his earlier statement on President Rodrigo Duterte supposedly allowing the execution of Mary Jane Veloso, the Filipina convicted for drug trafficking in Indonesia.

A report on Channel News Asia quoted Widodo as saying that what Duterte told him during their September 9 meeting in Indonesia was "go ahead with the process in line with the law in Indonesia."

This confirmed Malacañang's earlier statement that Duterte, who was in Indonesia last week for a working visit, did not endorse Veloso's execution but instead told Widodo that he would not interfere with Indonesia's legal processes.

Malacañang made the clarification after a Jakarta Post report said Duterte has given the "go-ahead" to proceed with the execution of Veloso, a mother of two who was sentenced to die by firing squad for bringing 2.6 kilograms of heroin in Indonesia in 2010.

The Jakarta Post report was quoting Widodo.

Following the report, Veloso's family in the Philippines sought a meeting with Duterte so that the President could personally tell them what really transpired in his meeting with Widodo.

As of Friday afternoon, Duterte has yet to meet with the Veloso family.

Veloso's execution was put on hold last year to allow her to testify against her alleged recruiters whom she accused of tricking her into bringing the illegal drugs to the Yogyakarta Airport in 2010.

Her alleged recruiters, Ma. Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, are currently facing illegal recruitment, human trafficking and estafa cases before a local court in Nueva Ecija.

Indonesia had earlier said it would respect the legal processes in the Philippines regarding Veloso's case against her alleged recruiters. —KBK, GMA News

Duterte has given the green light for Mary Jane's execution: Jokowi

Source: The Jakarta Post (12 September 2016)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/09/12/duterte-has-given-the-green-light-for-mary-janes-execution-jokowi.html

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo said on Monday that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte had given the green light for the execution of Filipina death row inmate Mary Jane Veloso.

"President Duterte has given the go-ahead to proceed with the execution,” Jokowi was quoted as saying by Antara news agency in Serang, Banten.

According to Jokowi, the legal process will be followed up by Attorney General M. Prasetyo.

“I have explained to [Duterte] about Mary Jane’s situation and I told him that Mary Jane [has been found guilty] for carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin. I also told him about the delay in the execution during the meeting,” Jokowi said.

Veloso was arrested at Adisucipto Airport in Yogyakarta in April 2010.

Veloso was excluded from the list of the third round of executions prepared by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) in April, as legal procedures continue in a separate but related case in her country. Veloso was on the execution list last year but was granted a stay of execution because her alleged boss had been arrested in the Philippines, and the authorities there requested Indonesian assistance in pursuing the case. (dmr)

Indonesia’s Push to Execute Drug Convicts Underlines Flaws in Justice System

Source: The New York Times (13 August 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/world/asia/indonesia-executions-drug-smuggling.html?_r=0

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Sixteen years ago, Zulfiqar Ali left his native Pakistan for Indonesia in search of a new life. Last month, that life was on the verge of ending in front of a firing squad.

Mr. Ali has been on Indonesia’s death row since 2005, after he was convicted of heroin trafficking. A government-ordered inquiry later found that he was probably innocent. Still, in July, he was one of 14 convicts, most of them foreigners, who were taken to the prison island of Nusakambangan off Java’s southern coast to be put to death.

Minutes before they were to be executed, on July 29, Mr. Ali and nine other convicts were given a reprieve, for reasons the government has yet to explain. But four were shot dead as scheduled, including a Nigerian who supporters say was framed. And Mr. Ali, like the rest who were spared, remains condemned.

More than a year after Indonesia drew international censure by putting to death 12 foreigners convicted of drug crimes, the country has resumed a war on narcotics by way of executions — and has again put a spotlight on its profoundly flawed justice system.

Critics in Indonesia and abroad say those flaws go so deep that the country should not employ the death penalty at all. Researchers have found that many condemned convicts were tortured by the police into confessing, did not receive access to lawyers or were otherwise denied fair trials.

The resumption of executions means “that the government has ignored that there is something seriously wrong with our judiciary and law enforcers,” said Robertus Robet, a lecturer and researcher at the State University of Jakarta’s sociology department. He characterized the government as “trigger-happy.”Photo

“When you execute someone, you execute the possibility of finding out the truth,” he said.

Amnesty International has denounced “the manifestly flawed administration of justice in Indonesia that resulted in flagrant human rights violations.” Similar concerns have been raised by the United Nations and the European Union, which sent a delegation to try to persuade Indonesia to spare inmates who were condemned to die last year.

Indonesia has long had the death penalty, but its use was sporadic in the years before President Joko Widodo took office in October 2014. Declaring drug abuse a “national emergency,” Mr. Joko denied clemency appeals from 64 death row inmates who had been convicted of drug crimes, most of them foreigners, and the government set a goal of executing all of them by the end of 2015.

That did not happen, but five drug convicts were put to death in January of that year, and eight more in April. (An Indonesian was also executed for murder in January.) Among the convicts executed in April, seven of whom were foreigners, were Andrew Chan, 31, and Myuran Sukumaran, 34, Australians who were arrested in 2005 trying to smuggle heroin out of Bali, the resort island.

The men admitted their guilt, but their lawyers said the judge in the case was corrupt, having offered a lesser sentence in exchange for a bribe. Indonesia rejected appeals by the Australian government to spare them, and Australia withdrew its ambassador in protest.

Also executed in April was Rodrigo Gularte, 42, a Brazilian convicted of drug smuggling who had repeatedly been given a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Indonesian law forbids the execution of mentally ill convicts.

Dave McRae, a senior research fellow at the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne in Australia who has researched the use of capital punishment in Indonesia, said that the deficiencies in the justice system here could be found in most countries that still used the death penalty.

“A lot of the objections to Indonesia’s use of the death penalty — inconsistent and arbitrary sentencing and application of the death penalty, allegations of corruption and wrongful convictions, questions over access to lawyers and interpreters and adequacy of representation — are questions that are raised all over the world,” he said.

Such concerns have been raised about the cases against some of the convicts spared last month — and some who were executed, including the Nigerian, Humphrey Jefferson Ejike Eleweke.

Mr. Eleweke was arrested in 2003 after the police found heroin at a restaurant he ran in Jakarta, the capital; he said an employee had planted it. His lawyers say that the police beat him until he confessed.

They also say that by law, an 11th-hour appeal for clemency issued to Mr. Joko should have automatically halted his execution. Last week, legal activists filed a complaint with a judicial watchdog against Indonesia’s attorney general, saying that Mr. Eleweke’s execution and those of two others should have been stopped because of those appeals, according to local news reports.

“We cannot have the death penalty here because of the judicial system — it’s problematic, it’s dysfunctional,” said Ricky Gunawan, director of the Community Legal Aid Institute, a nongovernmental organization that represented Mr. Eleweke.

Another allegation of corruption emerged just before the executions last month, when one of the men put to death, an Indonesian named Freddy Budiman, was quoted as saying that he had paid senior law enforcement officials more than $40 million to let his drug smuggling operation continue before he was arrested.Photo

That accusation was included in a report released by a rights activist, Haris Azhar, who had interviewed Mr. Budiman in prison; shortly thereafter, the police, the military and Indonesia’s anti-narcotics board, all of which were implicated in the report, filed a criminal defamation complaint against Mr. Azhar. On Thursday, Mr. Joko ordered those agencies to investigate the corruption allegations.

The case of Mr. Ali, the Pakistani who was spared execution, has also raised concerns.

Mr. Ali, who immigrated to Indonesia in 2000, was accused of drug dealing in 2004 by a friend, Gurdip Singh, who had been caught with heroin; Mr. Singh later said the police had pressured him and offered a reduced sentence to name accomplices. Mr. Ali’s lawyers say their client was arrested without a warrant at his home, where no drugs were found, and signed a confession after being beaten so badly in custody that he needed two operations.

Though Mr. Ali retracted his confession and Mr. Singh withdrew his accusation, both men were sentenced to death in 2005. But the severity of Mr. Ali’s beating drew attention to the case, and the government ordered an unusual inquiry, which concluded that he was likely to be innocent.

The government never acted on those findings, and Mr. Ali and Mr. Singh were among those who nearly faced a firing squad.

“He was never involved in drugs,” Mr. Ali’s wife, Siti Rohani, who lives in West Java Province with their three children, said in an interview.

A spokesman for Mr. Joko, Johan Budi, denied that the judicial system was dysfunctional, saying the executions had followed legal procedures.

Mr. Ali, along with Mr. Singh and several of the other convicts who were given reprieves, is still in prison on Nusakambangan Island, where Indonesia conducts executions. Ms. Siti said she and her husband’s family in Pakistan were in a torturous state of limbo.

“We’re just confused because there is no certainty about my husband’s fate,” she said.

M. Rum, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, declined to explain why Mr. Ali and the other convicts had been given reprieves, saying only that it was “for judicial and nonjudicial reasons.” But he said the executions would eventually be carried out.

Executions: Indonesia disregards its own laws

Source: The Jakarta Post (20 August 2016)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/08/20/executions-ri-disregards-its-own-laws.html

Recently, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) held another round of executions and, similar to last year’s executions, all those executed were drug offenders.

Hours after the executions, Attorney General M. Prasetyo reiterated that other countries should respect the sovereignty of Indonesian law, denying any appeals from countries concerned about the imposition of the death penalty in Indonesia.

The fact that the death penalty exists in our law is not in question, but this does not necessarily mean that the death penalty has always been implemented flawlessly.

In fact, given that the criminal justice system is human-made, it is inherently prone to human error.
In the days leading up to the execution, serious unfair trials and miscarriages of justice experienced by those to be executed were raised by lawyers, family members and human rights groups.

And now we have something more: an unlawful execution.

Outcries over the latest executions came from rights watchdogs, which identified two main errors.
First, at least two out of four of the executed — Seck Osmane and Humphrey Ejike — had pending clemency decisions.

According to the Article 13 of the Clemency Law, an execution of a prisoner who has filed a clemency petition cannot be carried out before the President has issued a presidential decree on the clemency decision.

Article 7 paragraph (2) of the same law previously regulated that one could lodge a clemency petition one year after one’s court decision was declared final and binding.

However, only last June the Constitutional Court declared that such a limitation was not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and therefore revoked the article.

At that stage, neither of the two prisoners had filed clemency petitions until a few days before the executions. It seems obvious that legally speaking, both Seck and Humphrey still had a right to clemency and could not be executed before the President had made a decision over their petitions.

Second, the AGO violated the law on execution procedures, which regulates that executions cannot be carried out until 72 hours after a prosecutor notifies the condemned prisoners. All 14 death-row prisoners received their notification on July 26 around 3 p.m.

This meant that the executions could only be conducted, at the earliest, on the afternoon of July 29. In reality, the executions took place in the early hours of that day.

Given these two violations, it seems clear this latest round of executions was unlawful.

International communities have taken up these violations and condemned them. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, for example, called on Indonesia to put a moratorium in place, defining Indonesia as the “most prolific executioner in Southeast Asia”. Is this the international image that Indonesia wants to project?

European and Australian governments have also raised concerns over allegations of unfair trials, despite no European or Australian nationals being listed for execution.

This demonstrates that their appeal to Indonesia to halt the execution is not a matter of defending their own nationals, but rather a matter of universal principle.

A distinguished Islamic philosopher from Oxford University, Professor Tariq Ramadan, has also sent an open letter to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. He enlightened the President on how sharia sees the death penalty. He argues that “rahmah [compassion] is an absolute necessity, an essential principle, an imperative duty, even if there is no doubt and all the conditions are gathered”.

Despite the serious flaws and international criticisms, the AGO appeared adamant about its position on executions. Prasetyo has repeatedly said that other countries must respect the sovereignty of Indonesia’s law.

Talking about such sovereignty, the attorney general himself has violated Indonesian law with those infringements. How can we expect foreign countries to respect our sovereignty of law if the law enforcers themselves blatantly disregard it?

That seems to be a paradoxical position and a hypocritical standing. This legal calamity can go on no longer. President Jokowi must stop any further executions.

Thorough evaluation of death penalty cases by an independent team established by the President is imperative.In the meantime, while the team is reviewing all death penalty cases, Indonesia must implement a moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty for all crimes.

This third round of executions has shown us that even where an execution is “legal”, it does not mean that it is not intrinsically problematic.

Further, it potentially kills an innocent person. How many innocent lives must we end until we stop this senseless killing?
__________________________________________
The writer is a legal fellow at Reprieve UK, based in Jakarta. Reprieve UK advocates for worldwide abolition of the death penalty

Why executions in Indonesia must stop

Source: The Conversation (3 August 2016)

http://theconversation.com/why-executions-in-indonesia-must-stop-63266

Indonesia executed four prisoners on death row for drug offences early on Friday. Last week’s killings were the third round of executions under Joko Widodo’s government, and were carried out despite ongoing legal appeals and international pressure.

The firing squad shot dead Humphrey Jefferson Ejike Eleweke and Michael Titus from Nigeria, Seck Osmane from Senegal, and Freddy Budiman, an Indonesian national.

These executions were different from two rounds of executions last year that killed 14 people, including Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Then, the government prepared with a lot of fanfare, went through bitter diplomatic fallouts, and endured international criticism. This time, the government carried out the executions abruptly and quietly.

The government notified families of 14 prisoners only on the Tuesday that executions would take place. The government did not explain why the executions of ten of these prisoners were postponed.

Human rights experts in Indonesia have repeatedly called for the government to stop the use of capital punishment. Hours before the third round of executions, the Indonesia Alliance of Human Rights Lecturers released a short statement addressed to Jokowi.

We urged him to stop the executions. Our considerations are simple. Not only does the death penalty violates human rights, executions in Indonesia are carried out under a deeply flawed justice system.
Violation of the right to life

The death penalty violates the most fundamental right in human life: the right to life. This right is enshrined in Indonesia’s Constitution in Article 28 I:

The right to life, the right to be free of torture, the rights for freedom of thought and conscience, the rights to religion, the rights to be free from slavery, the rights to be treated equal in front of the law, and the rights to not be charged on retroactive laws are non-derogable rights in any circumstances.

The Indonesian government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, committing itself to uphold international human rights law. Indonesia has yet to ratify the optional protocol to abolish the death penalty.

However, Indonesia’s penchant for executions will weaken the nation’s standing in seeking reprieve for 334 Indonesians on death row in other countries as of last year.
Indonesia violates its own laws

The Indonesian government has repeatedly failed to uphold its own laws regarding death sentencing.

For example, under Indonesian law, executions are prohibited when legal processes are still ongoing. Jefferson was executed despite his pending clemency appeal. Jefferson, convicted in 2004 after the police found 1.7kg of heroin in a room used by one of his employees in a restaurant he ran, maintained that he was innocent and was framed.

By going ahead with the execution despite pending appeals, the government has clearly violated Article 13 on clemency law and ignored the 2015 Constitutional Court decision on the death penalty.

Further, the attorney-general also violated the rights to information of the advocates and families of the prisoners. They have the right to 72 hours notice of execution. The attorney-general only informed lawyers and families 60 hours prior.

The implementation of the death penalty without fixing the corrupt judicial system will not deter people from engaging in the illegal drug trade. Convicting and executing drug dealers will not eliminate drug trafficking in Indonesia as long as corrupt officials are free to abuse the system.

This is clear in the case of Budiman. He was sentenced to death in 2012 for smuggling 1.4 million ecstasy pills from China from behind bars.

Ahead of Budiman’s execution, the head of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), Haris Azhar, released a statement on social media that went viral. Azhar said that when he visited Budiman in 2014, Budiman implicated military generals, National Narcotics Agency officials and the police in running the drug trade.

In short, indication of involvement of the state apparatus in Indonesia’s drug trade is really strong. In the last couple of months there have been many news reports on military and police involvement in the drug network. In April, the attorney-general fired 20 attorneys involved in illegal drug offences.

It would not be surprising if the death penalty was merely an attempt to cover-up the corrupt law enforcers.

There are deep flaws in the law and legal enforcement, especially in the process of death sentencing and executions. The death penalty is built on weak institutions. This affects not only justice for the condemned but also the attempt to create a just legal system in Indonesia. The strength or weakness of the institution reflects the quality of Indonesia’s law.