Font size: 
It seems Indonesia has experienced a change of thinking on this point; in international forums the country has condemned torture. But its record of abuses in light of the International Day against Torture shows a different picture.
Almost 10 years ago Indonesia signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Two weeks ago, the Universal Periodic Review of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which reviews a given country's human rights record, was adopted. The Council is the new central institution for intergovernmental human rights dialogue at the United Nations, and has just finished the first two rounds of its innovative new mechanism.
Indonesia’s review has resulted in a working group report that summarizes intergovernmental dialogues as well as recommendations by other countries. Among the recommendations was the criminalization of torture by including the international definition of torture in the Penal Code. Indonesia has not objected to that, as it claims it is "committed" to abolishing torture.
Still, diplomatic language has subtle nuances. What can be learned from the final UPR’s report on the government's approach to abolishing torture? Some of the recommendations have received the "agreement" of the republic; others have only received "support" or less endorsement.
Government representatives have not reached consensus on recommendations regarding the abolition of torture as an unofficial practice among security forces like the police. Thus a failure to commit to the abolishment of torture also implies accepting and tolerating its continued existence as a practice.
Torture is seen by many as the mother of all human rights violations. Practices in different Asian countries like Indonesia include beating, burning, drowning, electric shocks and more. The list is both painful and endless, but the common element is that pain is intentionally inflicted upon a person to force a confession or to vigorously coerce in other ways. What would make such practices acceptable? In most cases it is the ancient approach of maintaining order through force rather than through justice mechanisms.
Firstly, this kind of thinking is held not only by governments but also by civilians in many countries. "A criminal like a thief or murderer needs to be dealt with in a tough manner," some might think when seeing the police beating up a suspect. After all, it is often expected that the police will apply force to punish those who disturb the peace and justice in a society.
Still, one must first be proven guilty of the crime before being punished. And authorities that are trained, educated, and have enough experience should fulfill this duty through the courts.
Secondly, the courts should decide the severity of the crime and whether punishment should be applied; such decisions should be consistent in different cases. How then can a local police officer be expected to serve as a reliable institution to make such decisions? In the minds of many, this question does not even arise.
The idea of punishment itself is no longer a recognized approach in justice mechanisms of the state. The name of the institution that applied punishments centuries ago is in most countries the correctional services. As implied by its name, this service seeks to re-socialize a criminal in a manner that respects his or her inalienable right to dignity. While there is still no conclusion on the efficacy of this matter, it is fair to say that countries applying this modern approach have better records in their crime statistics.
Accepting the old norms of police conduct that violate human rights norms will necessarily result in the non-commitment of the government to eradicate the practice. This is one of the important reasons for Indonesia’s years of delay in the criminalization of torture. This attitude is of course hard to maintain in international forums. Therefore Indonesia will continue to "support" the abolition of torture but has not "agreed" on effective measures.
--
(Norman Voss is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong. He studied physics and pursued a master’s degree in international and public affairs. His work presently includes human rights issues in Indonesia and the advocacy of human rights reforms.)
