FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-186-2008
July 7, 2008
A Joint Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Indonesian Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat)
INDONESIA: Failure to acknowledge the essence of right to life resulting in more people being executed
Five Indonesian convicts are about to be executed within this month, according to the Indonesian Attorney General Office. The Asian Human Rights Commission and The Indonesian Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat) urge the President of Indonesia to place a moratorium on them, and to demand the Indonesian government to halt such inhuman punishment.
On June 27, 2008, the Indonesian government commemorated the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking by executing two Nigerians who were convicted of drug trafficking. It is miserable, that such inhuman punishment took place in a day where humanity around the world commemorated the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. This act reflects the Indonesian governments lack of support and senses to support victims of torture and to erase the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment as well.
There are 72 people waiting on death row in Indonesia, and about 60 of them have been sentenced for drug-related crimes. It is reported that five Indonesians will soon be facing a firing squad after they have exhausted all appeals. In a large populated country of 235 million people, the death penalty in Indonesia has often been viewed by the government as an effective way to deter crimes from occurring. Law enforcers perceive capital punishment as a positive law that is in line with human rights norms because its aim is to protect society from ruthless criminals. Statistics from around the world, however, demonstrate that the death penalty has little deterrent effect on decreasing crimes, whether they be drug trafficking or murder.
The death penalty is unjust. Execution by a death penalty under state jurisdiction violates the most basic rights, not privileges, of human beings. No matter the severity of the crime, punishment by calculated murder is cruel and inhumane. It is not the position or responsibility of a state judicial system to decide whether or not to take a persons life.
As in other countries, the death penalty in Indonesia engenders a heated debate. Some people question the governments right to take a life while others argue that the death penalty should be imposed on severe crimes. To view the death penalty in such a light clouds peoples understanding that the death penalty itself is cruel and inhumane treatment against a fellow human being, regardless of the crime this person has committed. The Supreme Court and Constitutional Courts ruling in upholding the death penalty reinforces a culture of revenge that encourages and allows citizens to seek an eye for an eye resolution of a crime through the countrys legal system. The question is, Will the victim or the victims family attain justice if another persons life is taken? Is this not committing the same crime as murder with the only difference being that the death penalty is a murder endorsed by the state? Does the state not have a guilty conscience for dictating who has the right to life and die?
Supporters of the death penalty in Indonesia believe the state has a constitutional obligation to prevent drug-related deaths. Therefore, the states protection of its citizens through application of the death penalty for both its citizens and foreigners is seen as a necessary tool for law enforcement. This argument maintains that the Supreme Court must take appropriate law enforcement actions to punish criminals. To do fulfil this aim, the government must use the death penalty as the most extreme form of punishment.
But is this logic accurate?
There is no evidence proving the death penalty to be the most effective form of deterrence for would-be criminals, including drug traffickers. The death penalty is cruel and inhuman, but will the death penalty deter would-be criminals?
The Supreme Court and Constitutional Courts ruling to uphold use of the death penalty goes against the current global trend to abolish the death penalty. An average of three countries every year abolish the death penalty. In December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution supporting a moratorium on capital punishment. This resolution is the first time the United Nations has made the death penalty a human rights issue.
In this regard, we stand for the right to life and thus urge the Indonesian government to revoke the death penalty for every person on death row and for future offences. In particular, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Indonesian Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat) ask that the president place a moratorium on the execution of the five convicts who are about to be executed, namely, Ahmad Suraji, Maulana Yusuf, Sugeng, Sumiarsih and one other person whose identity has not yet been revealed, as stated by the Attorney General Office on 1 July 2008.
We urge the Indonesian government to emulate the step taken by the United Nations and other nations. We further question the interpretation of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Article 28 I of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees that the right to life cannot be limited under any circumstances. Although prohibition of the death penalty is not clearly stated in the Constitution, the phrase cannot be limited under any circumstances in Article 28 I should be interpreted to as a prohibition of the death penalty, especially since the Constitution is the foundation of the countrys legal system and the death penalty is the state-sanctioned denial of the right to life.
We are campaigning against the death penalty, not only because it is unconstitutional and is a grave violation of human rights, but also because there are serious flaws in the Indonesian justice system. The justice rendered by the justice system in Indonesia is often impartial, susceptible to bribery and corruption and grave errors, which makes the sentence of capital punishment highly questionable. We stress that it is not the severity of the punishment that will deter crimes and bring justice for the victim, but it is the certainty that perpetrators are convicted after a just and transparent trial in court, a legal process that finds the person guilty based on evidence. Moreover, we emphasise that the punishment should be in line with the notion of correcting and rehabilitating the perpetrator and should be based on the severity of the crime with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
—
About LBH Masyarakat: The Community Legal Aid Institute is a non-profit civil society organisation in Indonesia providing legal aid and building a community-based human rights monitoring system. The institute was founded in December 2007 by several human rights lawyers and scholars in Jakarta.
