T

em>The Indonesian government has balked at complying with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) recommendations, issued during its quadrennial “Universal Periodic Review” in May, that the country must amend or repeal laws and regulations discriminatory against the country’s religious minorities. Five months later, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay arrived in the country and repeated the same call and grew more concerned about the increasing violence against religious minorities.

Pillay, a South African national, was the first woman to start a law practice in her home province of Natal in 1967. She has acted as a defense attorney for anti-apartheid activists, exposing torture, and helping establish key rights for prisoners on Robben Island.

In her public statement, Pillay also highlighted several other cases of human rights violations, but religious persecution certainly tops her list. The Jakarta Post’s Margareth S. Aritonang and Yohanna Ririhena interviewed her at the UN’s mission headquarters in Central Jakarta.

Question: Your visit here has apparently brought hope to the lives of those who suffer from religious discrimination, such as the Shia community in Sampang, East Java. What will you recommend to restore their rights and particularly to release Shia leader Tajul Muluk, who is in prison for blasphemy?

Answer: I have met the wife of the Shia leader who is in prison. And I have already raised the issue with both the government and the judges. I myself will look into the facts of the case. I’ve been assured by the government and the judges that freedom of expression is protected under the Constitution, but at the local level, the Shia leader appears to have been charged for expressing an opinion that doesn’t suit those who disagreed with him. I will have my office look at the charge sheet and begin to address it from there.

I’m very concerned with individuals being charged in local courts for violating freedom of expression when, in the constitution, that right is assured.

We will continue to focus on individual cases that concern us that may amount to human rights violations.

You have recommended the government amend or repeal regulations you see as discriminatory toward religious minorities, such as the 1965 Blasphemy Law. However, the government has continuously claimed that such regulation is in line with the Constitution. How do you see this?

I too have been told that those laws are valid. However, I didn’t get any clear answers wherever I raised it. This is an ongoing problem that has to be addressed.

I will continue to call for the repeal of laws that fall short of the international obligations that Indonesia has undertaken. Even though the Constitutional Court has found the Blasphemy Law not to be in conflict with the Constitution, I still have trouble reconciling at that law with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which are fundamental freedoms.

Government officials have previously said that the implementation of the universal human rights values should adopt local contexts, such as bylaws. Is this acceptable or is Indonesia obliged to abide by the UN’s universal human rights values as a member state?

That is totally unacceptable. It has to be the other way around. Whatever your local context is, you owe the same rights and protection to your people that people all over the world enjoy. Universal rights have been formulated by all the member states of the UN, so that is the standard everyone accepts.

The Indonesian government has rejected recommendations on religious freedom by the United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC]. What if the government continues to refuse comply with the UN?

It’s true that it’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best we have and we’ve never had this problem before. Four years ago, we didn’t have a mechanism that could examine the human rights record of a civil society. But now victims can come to the human rights council and they have a voice, a forum where they are heard, and the high commissioner’s office will independently examine the situation and report. That’s what we have now.

So far, the system is voluntarily. There is no penalty if a state doesn’t comply with the recommendations.

As with all international statutes, the state has to undertake its obligations. It’s important that you implement them. I will continue to urge Indonesia to accept the recommendations that it is not ready to accept now. I’ll find out what the difficulty is. Why isn’t the government accepting it? How can we assist? Sometimes with through different steps we can reach the same goal.

Let me assure you that all states take the UPR [Universal Periodic Review] very seriously now. This is probably why the Indonesian delegation was at such a high level, led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They genuinely want to advance the human rights of the people in Indonesia. They want to protect human rights and they want to use all the tools and mechanisms that are now available.

We get many directives from the human rights council to provide technical assistance. So it’s not, as I said, a perfect system but that’s where we are. We have to rely on the good faith of the government to implement our recommendations, and on civil societies from the country concerned to monitor the situation and report to the council. I’m afraid there are no consequences, but it does go on public record.