Month: February 2016

War on Drugs in RI: Demonizing The Most Vulnerable

This piece was written by Martin Lundqvist and Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 12 December 2008.

When arriving at the international terminal of Soekarno-Hatta Airport, Jakarta, the first tangible impression is the huge neon sign reading \”Welcome to Indonesia — Death Penalty for Drug Traffickers!\” This sign is indicative of the Indonesian government\’s policy on drugs, which has resulted in the adoption of a \”war on drugs\” law, as well as in stigmatizing and discriminating against the domestic drug user community.

According to Law No. 22/1997 on Narcotics anyone handling narcotics is a criminal. This means that the drug dealer, the drug trafficker and the drug user are liable for criminal prosecution. There is no doubt that the drug trafficker should be prosecuted and punished, but the drug user? The government claims to have adopted a \”war on drugs\” — a war which has resulted in criminalizing and stigmatizing some of the most vulnerable people in society — the drug addicts.

This law has been accompanied by several government-initiated advertising campaigns, the basic tenet of which is to portray the drug addict as the antithesis of \”goodness\”. S/he is portrayed as a sinful person who will end up in hell, contrasting with the \”good citizen\” who will go to heaven in the afterlife. The drug user is additionally depicted as inhuman and is virtually demonized in these campaigns.

As a natural consequence of this law and the advertisement campaigns, discrimination against drug users is a common feature in Indonesian public life — most notably seen in the relationship between the police and the drug user. It seems many police have a quota of arrests to meet every month — arrests which are disproportionately aimed at drug users.

Additionally, they are often arrested and then asked for money in order to be released. Given that the average salary for the police is only around Rp 3 million (US$241.35) per month, this is an easy way to increase their income. In their interactions with drug users the police often use torture, threats and illegal detention as a means to gain confessions of alleged crimes or for payment of bribes.

Torture practices are especially experienced by female drug users. They are frequently subjected to sexual harassment from the police. It is common knowledge amongst the women that in order for them to be released they must provide sexual services to the police. In their daily language this is referred to as: tukar body (exchange body). In practice then, their options are restricted to paying money, providing sex services, or staying detained.

The drug user is an ideal victim for abuse of power, since very few of them are likely to file complaints about police misconduct. This is partially so because many of them have internalized the values of the \”war on drugs\” campaigns, and feel they somehow deserve to be tortured.

They also have a widespread fear of the police — a fear which is highly rational given the normal (violent) pattern of interactions between the police and the drug user. Therefore, the police enjoy almost full impunity when it comes to violating the human rights of drug users.

Sadly, very few legal aid and human rights organizations advocate against torture when the victim is a drug user. They are worried that this might negatively affect their \”good image\” as human rights defenders. This is regrettable, but also quite understandable, when considering the perception most Indonesians have of drug users, which is condemning, to say the least. However, defending human rights should be about defending every human being\’s rights — regardless of their sex, race, gender, religion or social status.

As mentioned, large sectors of the Indonesian public hold strongly disapproving attitudes toward the drug user, attitudes which (to a large extent) derive from the government\’s demonizing campaigns. Drug users are considered to be sinful and should therefore be excluded from the environment of the \”good citizens\” — including education and health institutions. The consequence of this is that many schools have a strict admissions policy where prospective students have to pass a urine test in order to prove that they are \”clean\”.

When it comes to healthcare, drug users are often treated in a demeaning manner by doctors and health care personnel. For example, they are frequently asked questions such as: \”why do you want to get sick? You know drugs make you sick, still you use it\”. The drug user has to endure moral condemnation which should have no place in a professional medical institution.

Finally, it is important to note that drug addiction is indeed a major societal problem which needs to be combated. However, this need not include criminalizing and stigmatizing a large group of citizens. Many international examples show that it is possible to be \”hard on drugs\” while also respecting the needs and human rights of its citizens.

Heavy drug addiction is a health hazard, and the addict should be given proper medical care to help combat his addiction, rather than to be prosecuted and put in jail. Pursuant to Indonesian Law No. 11/2005, the government must recognize the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and thus must maximize available resources to achieve full realization of this right.

This law is derived from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which Indonesia has signed and ratified. Indonesian Law No. 22/1997 unfortunately proves that the government is more concerned with its \”war on drugs\” than with the health and human rights of some of its most exposed citizens.

Laws Against Torture Needed

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 22 November 2008.

On Jan. 22, 2007, Hartoyo was at home with his partner, Bobby (not his real name), when two men forcibly entered his house and proceeded to vandalize his property before assaulting the two men. Hartoyo and Bobby were then dragged outside to a place where a crowd of around 15 people had gathered. They were subjected to beatings and verbal abuse. Hartoyo was ordered by the attackers to immediately vacate the boarding house. The attackers then informed the local police authorities.

The two victims were taken by four police officers to the Banda Raya Police Station where they were made to strip down to their underwear and were viciously beaten and verbally abused by the officers. The police officers later sexually abused Hartoyo and then forced his partner to perform oral sex on him. The two were then dragged to the police station courtyard where officers sprayed them with ice-cold water.

The police also forced Bobby to urinate on Hartoyo\’s head. Hartoyo and his partner were then taken to a police lockup, where they were held until morning.

This ruthless, inhuman and barbaric torture has been a cavernous trauma for Hartoyo. Furthermore, this abysmal event scars Indonesia\’s face of humanity.

More than a year later, in October 2008, the case was finally tried by the Banda Aceh District Court. However, as the court regarded the torture merely as a minor offense, there was only one judge hearing the case.

During the trial, the judge did not examine the acts of torture but rather focused on Hartoyo\’s sexual orientation. The judge advised him to turn away from sin, giving the impression that it was permissible for the perpetrators to beat and assault the victims because of their different sexual orientation.

In about 30 minutes, the judge had made his decision: The four perpetrators were sentenced to three months\’ imprisonment with six months of probation and a fine of Rp 1,000.

Given that the case was tried as a minor offense, the verdict was final and binding — leaving no hope for the victim to appeal.

Hartoyo\’s case is only one example of how the Indonesian legal apparatus treats this kind of torture. The court obviously treats the \”common enemies of all mankind and all nations\” nicely and inadequately by ruling they only committed a minor offense.

From this case, we can also draw the conclusion that torture creates double standards within the state institutions, especially the police and judiciary. How is it possible that such severe violence took place in this very modern day and the perpetrators received a very light punishment?

This case demonstrates how the absence of laws on torture resulted in no justice for the victims of torture. The absence of laws on torture denies victims and their families any avenue for justice and redress. The right to redress and compensation for grievances wreaked by the State is a fundamental principle of the Convention against Torture, to which Indonesia is a party. Indonesia, which does not provide a legal remedy for such unspeakable acts, is also violating its international obligation imposed under the Convention.

Reports from many national and international human rights groups show there have never been investigations into cases of torture and other ill-treatment, and where victims have been reluctant to submit a complaint to the relevant authorities. Even if the perpetrators were convicted, they were not convicted under the laws on torture. Definitely, there is a problem in dealing with torture in Indonesia.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that for a country such as Indonesia, there is a crucial need for an independent national authority, such as a national commission or ombudsman with investigatory and/or prosecutorial powers, which should be immediately established to receive and to investigate complaints on torture cases.

Complaints about torture should be dealt with without further delay and should also be investigated by an independent authority with no connection to that which is investigating or prosecuting the case against the alleged victim. Wherever a person has a plausible complaint of having been tortured by the police or military officers, it too entails the notion of an effective remedy.

Without establishing a proper, impartial and effective accountability mechanism to investigate torture cases as well as enacting domestic laws on torture, there will be more cases like Hartoyo\’s in the near future. Indonesia\’s tortured commitment, apparently, is dragging the country into a tortured nation.

No Anti-Torture Laws 10 Years On

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 10 October 2008.

On Sept. 28, 1998, Indonesia ratified Convention against Torture. It was expected that this ratification would be a milestone in the struggle against torture. It was meant to impede rampant and continuous torture practices committed by Indonesian police officers and military forces at the time.

Despite the ratification, however, there is no corresponding domestic law criminalizing torture.

For some, torture is the same as maltreatment. According to international human rights law, however, torture is categorized as the highest of crimes. The jus cogens nature of torture justifies states taking universal jurisdiction over torture wherever committed.

International human rights law provides that offenses jus cogens may be punished by any state because the offenders are \”common enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and prosecution\”. Those who commit torture are classed as acting against humanity (hostis humanis generis). Meanwhile, maltreatment is simply an ordinary crime.

Torture has an enormous impact on the lives of victims, victims\’ families, perpetrators and their families, those aware of such practices in civil society, and enforcement agencies. Torture is not just about breaking the victims, both physically and mentally.

It will haunt the victims for the rest of their lives. Torture is always deliberate and the victims are always unwary. The inflicted pain is acute and chronic. Central to the practice of torture is the intention of cruelty and destruction.

Torture is acknowledged as an ultimate denial of the inherent dignity of every individual. It focuses the power of the state apparatus against a single, defenseless individual, who is often locked in a small, murky room. Torture aims to isolate, hurt and humiliate the victim by using one of the most basic human nature, the aversion of pain or suffering, to overpower dignity. Moreover, it aims to strip the individual of the very qualities on which human rights are based.

The consequences of torture are multidimensional and interrelated. No part of the victim\’s life is untouched. Although the effects of the physical pain suffered diminish after months or years, lasting physical impairments resulting from torture, such as amputation, hearing loss, blindness, muscle impairment, inability to bear children, sexual dysfunction, scars and poorly healed fractures, are permanent mementos of the trauma endured.

In addition to the physical wounds, torture victims suffer from psychological symptoms such as feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame and powerlessness in relation to the problems of everyday life. They can also suffer from poor sleep and recurrent nightmares.

Torture stigmatizes and ostracizes the victims. The families, spouses and children of the victims also bear the brunt, left to lead secluded and demoralized lives.

The aftermath of torture does not solely affect the victims and their families. It affects the perpetrators as well. Torturers and their families also suffer from comparable psychological effects, though they enshroud them using a facade of pride and superiority.

The torturer will be living a normal life even though they have just committed a serious crime. In fact, in terms of family relationships, torturers are living a double life: They are nice fathers at home, while also cruel, ruthless and cold-blooded people.

Despite the unspeakable aftermath of the crime as well as a plethora of reports and declarations issued by the international community, torture persists in more than half of the countries in the world, including Indonesia. Torture remains a problem of great magnitude in the world.

Societies allowing the practice of torture to take place are more likely to develop a culture of violence, generating further atrocities. Deterring such actions and establishing measurable systems to effectively prevent torture may come only from respect of human dignity and social sanity, without which, torture remains an abhorrent violation of human rights and human dignity.

The question left is, will the Indonesian government put its overly repeated commitments to pass proper laws on torture into reality or not? Ten years is, of course, more than enough for the Indonesian government to thoroughly understand the gravity of torture. Recognition of the grave nature, however, devoid of a single law to criminalize it will never bring such evil practices to an end.

Death Sentence, Is It Our Right?

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and Answer C. Styaness and was published in The Jakarta Post on 5 September 2008.

Setting out the pros and cons about the death penalty always creates hot debate. Many countries including Indonesia, as well as several U.S. states, still have capital punishment, while the practice has been abolished in Europe and Australia.

Opponents of capital punishment argue there are many who still do not realize or recognize the death penalty violates the right to life as an inherent right of all human beings.

The death penalty is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is nothing more than legalized murder done by the state in the name of justice. If we think murder is extremely cruel — so much so the perpetrators must receive a death sentence — then how can we say preparing an execution team of twenty shooters to take someone\’s life is not inhuman?

One of the favorite arguments put forth by retentionists — those who support the death penalty — to justify capital punishment is it is one of the most effective deterrents for would-be criminals. They argue the death penalty is needed to prevent other members of society from committing crimes.

Statistics from many countries, however, demonstrate the death penalty has little effect on decreasing crime. It is not the severity of the punishment which will deter crime and convey justice for the victim but the certainty perpetrators are convicted after a just, transparent trial, a legal process which determines guilt based on evidence.

\”But the death penalty meets society\’s need for justice.\” Retentionists often use this argument as well. Anyone who has committed a serious crime deserves to die. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Is that the kind of justice we stand for here?

If so, then why not torture a torturer? At this point, we strongly condemn the practice of torture or, at least, prohibition of torture is clearly codified in the UN Convention against Torture. Letting that argument play out, why doesn\’t our legal system allow the state to rape a rapist?

It is simply because, deep down inside our conscience, we all know justice is not about taking that which the perpetrator has taken from us. For a long time, we have been sickened by cruel crimes and have asked the government to impede such cruelty by applying the death penalty. Yet we never put two and two together to see capital punishment does nothing more than continue the chain of atrocity.

Retentionists often link the notion of death penalty with a victim\’s need for justice. But who are they to talk about what any victim considers justice to be?

Victims often forgive perpetrators and even unequivocally declare they do not want the perpetrators to be executed. If we really want to punish perpetrators for the victims\’ sake, it is akin to punishing people based on emotional considerations. If punishments are linked to victims\’ feelings, then sanctions become subjective and risk becoming arbitrary.

Let\’s not forget the criminal justice system is vulnerable to error, an essential consideration in this debate. Fallibility is something we, as human beings, cannot avoid since it is in our nature. We cannot prevent all false convictions even with the system of judicial appeal.

Even an impartial and transparent legal process cannot always prevent this sort of human error. It is thus imprudent to allow this vulnerable system to decide if someone \”deserves\” to die or not.

As has already been proved in many cases, a court may execute someone who is falsely convicted. There are cases in which the executed were found innocent after the real perpetrators confessed and, unfortunately, after the executed had already lost their life. When this happens, consider who is responsible. If we are speaking of justice, what kind of justice can the victim, the executed one, and his or her family experience? We cannot bring the wrongly convicted back to life. Are retentionists willing to be responsible?

One final argument which Indonesian retentionists use to defend their position on the death penalty is a decision by Indonesia\’s Constitutional Court. In that decision, the right to life guaranteed in Article 28I, paragraph 1, of the Constitution is also subject to \”limitation\” as mentioned in the subsequent Article 28J, paragraph 2. The Constitutional Court confirmed the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life, only a limitation of that right.

That decision hinges on how we interpret what rights can be impaired, and which cannot. Is it true the right to life, explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right which cannot be derogated, is also subject to \”limitation\” as the Constitutional Court ruled?

Life is grace. It is a grace which is given by God. If He is the one who gave us life, then He must be the one with the right to take it. Who are we, as humans, to think we have the right to arrange somebody\’s moment of death? Who are we to judge whether someone is evil enough and hence deserves to die?

Are we playing God?

Media Coverage of Our Works

We present you some international media coverage about the works of LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute):

1. The Jakarta Post, 10 February 2010, \”Female drug users suffer double discrimination\”
2. The Christian Science Monitor, 18 February 2010, \”Prison for wealthy Indonesians puts Club Fed to shame\” 
3. Asia Catalyst, 23 February 2009, \”Street Lawyering in Jakarta\”
4. The Jakarta Post, 13 April 2009, \”Legal aid group urges residents to report voting violations\”
5. Inside Indonesia, April-June 2009, \”Winning a battle, losing the war\”
6. International Bridges to Justice, 21 July 2010, \”Using innovative models and youthful enthusiasm to spread legal empowerment in Jakarta\”
7. Al Jazeera America, 2 February 2015, \”Rights groups criticize resumption of executions in Indonesia\”
8. Al Jazeera, 27 April 2015, \”Families ask Indonesia for clemency for drug prisoners\”
9. The Guardian, 23 April 2015, \”Bali Nine: embassies summoned in sign executions could be imminent\”
10. The New York Times, 29 April 2015, \”Portraits of an Execution in Indonesia\”
11. The Washington Post, 30 April 2015, \”Before facing firing squad, mentally ill inmate asks: ‘Am I being executed?’\”
12. BBC, 1 May 2015, \”Indonesia executions: Brazilian unaware he was going to die\”
13. The Straits Times, 9 May 2015, \”Indonesia President Jokowi insists death penalty \’positive\’ for country\”
14. Al Jazeera America, 20 May 2015, \”Japanese grandfather gets life term in Indonesia drug case\”
15. Al Jazeera America, 7 October 2015, \”Executions for drug crimes: A stubborn ‘fringe’ trend\”
16. The Coconuts Jakarta, 20 January 2016, \”Coalition of human right groups ask Indonesian government to end unjust use of the death penalty\”
17. Anti Death Penalty Asia Network, 20 January 2016, \”HR Groups to stop executions and abolish Death Penalty\”

Feel free to give us a shout in the comment section if you find another media coverage about us. You can also see the local media coverage about our works here.