March 5, 2013
Intervention by Indonesian Delegation at Interactive Dialogue with Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Terrorism
My delegation would like to thank the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism for their reports.
My delegation takes note of the work of the Working Group in handling the communications addressed to the Working Group and the adoption of Deliberation No. 9 on the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under International Customary Law. We also take note of the conclusion put forward that prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty constitutes part of international customary law and constitutes a peremptory norm.
We also take note of importance of the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty to bring proceedings before a court in order to challenge the legality of the detention.
In Indonesia, guarantee of the right to personal liberty is firmly anchored in the Constitution and other implementing laws, including in Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. Article 4 of the Law states, among others, that the right to recognition as a person and equality before the law, as well as the right to freedom from retroactive prosecution are non-derogable rights under any circumstances and by anyone. This guarantee is reaffirmed in Article 34 of Law no. 39 of 1999 which states that every person shall not be arrested, detained, tortured, ostracized, exiled, or disposed arbitrarily.
Furthermore, right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty to bring proceedings before a court in order to challenge the legality of the detention is guaranteed, through, inter alia, a form of pre-trial hearing as stipulated in Articles 77 to 83 of Law no. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Proceeding Code. This hearing enables a detainee (as well as their family and/or relatives) to file a motion that the arrest, detention, or allegation is against the law. Upon filing the motion, the judge shall, within three days, set up a date to review the motion and provide their decision no later than 7 days afterward. The Judge’s decision on the motion cannot be appealed or, in other words, has a final legally binding decision.
With regard to the issue of promoting and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, my delegation appreciates the report of the Special Rapporteur which focuses on the principles in securing the right to truth and the principle of accountability of gross or systemic violations of human rights committed by public officials while countering terrorism.
In the context of accountability, mainstreaming human rights in all government policies and programmes, including in field of law enforcement, is continued efforts in my country. Strengthening legal frameworks and capacity of the human resources for a better deliverance of justice are among top priorities. These have been carried out in close cooperation with relevant stakeholders, both at the national, regional and international level.
It is my Government’s firm commitment that any allegations and reports of human rights violations are swiftly responded through independent and impartial process, according to the relevant laws and regulations. Culture of denials is no longer embraced.
My delegation takes note of the concerns raised in the Special Rapporteur which include, inter alia, the various means by which the right to truth and principle of accountability can be frustrated which include, among others, in the Special Rapporteur words, “the assertion by the executive of unjustified claims for secrecy on grounds of national security or the maintenance of good foreign relations.” In this regard, my delegation would like to ask the following one question:
Taking into account the extraordinary nature of acts of terrorism and its devastating effect to the human rights of innocent victims, could the Special Rapporteur elaborate more on how the pursuit of the right to truth and principle of accountability while combating terrorism could enhance the efficacy of the government’s efforts to deter future acts of terrorism?
I thank you.
Geneva, 5 March 2013