Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia).

Asia (South-eastern Asia).

Indonesian.

237,600,000.

Retentionist.

2016 In 2016, three Nigerian men and one Indonesian man were executed for drug-related crimes.

.

Shooting.

Death-sentenced inmates are executed by firing squad. The prisoner has the choice of standing or sitting, and of whether to have his eyes covered by a blindfold or hood. Firing squads are made up of 12 people, three of whose rifles are loaded with live ammunition, while the other nine are loaded with blanks. The squad fires from a distance of between five and ten meters. If following the shooting the prisoner still shows signs of life, there is one final shot to the head. A prisoner only learns of his impending execution 72 hours in advance.

Comments.

By law, executions are to take place out of the public view.

In 2009, Indonesia’s semi-autonomous region of Aceh endorsed a draft by-law providing for Shariah punishments, including stoning for adultery. This punishment was opposed by Indonesia. In March 2013, the Aceh government removed the stoning provision from the draft by-law.

At the end of 2020, there were at least 482 individuals on death row.

(This question was last updated on December 1, 2021.).

No. Indonesia resumed executions in 2013.

The moratorium in effect between 2008 and 2013 was never an official one. Reportedly, the stoppage in executions in 2009 was due to pending procedural questions before the Supreme Court. Reports from August 2010 indicate that despite resolution of those procedural questions in favor of allowing more speedy executions, the government had not yet resumed executions. That had been interpreted as a hesitancy to execute, but not an official moratorium.

The Constitution provides for rights to life and to remain free from torture that are “fundamental human rights that shall not be curtailed under any circumstance;” and the state must regulate and guarantee the implementation of fundamental rights through “laws and regulations.”

Murder.

Premeditated murder is punishable by death.

Other Offenses Resulting in Death.

Aggravated gang-robbery (theft preceded, accompanied or followed by force or threat of force and committed by two or more united persons, and committed either at night in a dwelling or after a forced entrance into a dwelling) resulting in death is punishable by death. “Extortion” with force or threat of force resulting in death, committed by two or more united persons, is punishable by death. Extortion is defined as forcing a person to deliver a good to oneself or to a third party or to negotiate a loan or annul a debt by force or threat of force.

Piracy resulting in death is punishable by death for the skipper, the captain, the commander, and all offenders involved in the acts of violence.

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death.

A person who deliberately uses violence or threats of violence, “claiming massive victims, taking away freedom, properties or lives of other human beings, and/or causing damage or destruction of strategic vital objects, the environment, public facilities and/or international facilities” may be sentenced to death. Under Articles 14 and 27 of Law No. 9 of 2008 relating to chemical weapons, use of chemical weapons is punishable by death.

Terrorism-Related Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

An individual who unlawfully imports, makes, receives, delivers, possesses or stores firearms, ammunition, explosives, or other dangerous materials, with the intention to commit a terrorist act, may be punished by death. Similarly, a person who handles chemical weapons, biological weapons, radiology, microorganisms, or nuclear or radioactive substances with the purpose of committing an act of terrorism can receive a death sentence. A person who intentionally “drives” another person to commit a terrorism-related offense may be sentenced to death. Conspiracy, preparation, attempt, or assistance to commit a crime of terrorism are acts punishable by death. A person located outside of Indonesia who assists another person to commit a terrorist act shall be punished with the same punishment as the perpetrator, including death.

Developing, producing, obtaining, transferring or using chemical weapons, or involvement in or incitement of the aforementioned, is punishable by death.

Reports indicate that Article 2 of Presidential Stipulation No. 5 of 1959 permitted the death penalty for crimes endangering food and housing.

Robbery Not Resulting in Death.

Aggravated gang-robbery (theft preceded, accompanied or followed by force or threat of force and committed by two or more united persons, and committed either at night in a dwelling or after a forced entrance into a dwelling) resulting in serious physical injury is punishable by death. “Extortion” with force or threat of force resulting in serious physical injury, committed by two or more united persons, is punishable by death. Extortion is defined as forcing a person to deliver a good to oneself or to a third party or to negotiate a loan or annul a debt by force or threat of force.

Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death.

Involvement in manufacturing or trafficking or conspiracy or organized crime related to manufacturing or trafficking is punishable by death. Under Article 89 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, involving children in production, trafficking or use of narcotics is punishable by death.

Drug Possession.

Under Article 59 of Law No. 5 of 1997 on psychotropic drugs, the use, production, possession or trafficking of psychotropic drugs “as an organized crime” is punishable by death.

Economic Crimes Not Resulting in Death.

Some acts of corruption detrimental to the finance or economy of the State are punishable by death.

Treason.

A range of offenses are punishable by death as treason, such as the killing or attempted murder of the Vice President, President or head of a friendly state, collusion with foreign powers intended to cause and resulting in hostilities and assisting the enemy or prejudicing the state in time of war (such as by betrayal, destruction or demoralization).

Espionage.

Under Articles 22 and 23 of Law No. 31/PNPS/1964 on atomic energy, “officers of the atomic installation, National Atomic Energy Body and other organizations that carry out the use of atomic energy” are punishable by death if they intentionally breach confidentiality.

Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

According to a 2010 report, numerous military offenses carry the death penalty under the Indonesian Military Penal Code.

War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide.

Under Articles 8, 9, 37 and 38 of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts, crimes that carry a maximum penalty of death include genocide (as defined by the Genocide Convention, but not including ancillary crimes of genocide) and crimes against humanity (such as killing, extermination, forcible transfer of citizens, imprisonment or other severe deprivations of physical liberty, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution, enforced disappearance and apartheid).

Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

Under Articles 14 and 27 of Law No. 9 of 2008 relating to chemical weapons, the development, production, obtaining, transfer or use of chemical weapons, including as part of a military operation, is punishable by death.

Comments.

A single semi-autonomous province, Aceh, approved a draft Islamic criminal by-law that reportedly included the punishment of stoning for adultery. This was never the law in the rest of Indonesia. In March 2013, the Aceh government removed the stoning provision from the draft by-law.

A draft criminal code (2006) retains the death penalty for offenses similar to those in the current penal code, with some inclusion of the other criminal laws discussed herein. The new code was submitted to lawmakers in March 2013, but by the end of our research we found no reports that it had been passed or implemented.

Despite the apparent expansiveness of the scope of the death penalty under Indonesian law, reports indicate that in practice the death penalty has been imposed and carried out only for murder (usually seriously aggravated), terrorism and drug trafficking offenses.

Reports (and the legislation we found) indicate that criminal laws always permit judicial discretion.

Comments.

There is no mandatory death penalty in Indonesia.

Individuals Below Age 18 at Time of Crime.

A child cannot serve a sentence unless the court determines that he can tell the difference between good and bad. Crimes that are normally punished by the death penalty are replaced by a maximum prison sentence of ten years for minors.

Pregnant Women.

The execution of a pregnant woman is stayed until 40 days after delivery.

Intellectually Disabled.

Pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Penal Code, no criminal liability can be imposed for an act committed “by reason of the defective development or sickly disorder” of the defendant’s “mental capacities.” We found no law indicating that individuals with significant intellectual disabilities are ineligible for execution apart from the circumstances described in Article 44(1). In other words, individuals with severe intellectual disabilities may be excused from criminal liability if their disabilities are proven to “cause” their criminal behavior. Where a direct causal relationship is not proven, however, there is no provision in the penal code that provides that such individuals shall not be sentenced to death."

Mentally Ill.

Pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Penal Code, no criminal liability can be imposed for an act committed “by reason of the defective development or sickly disorder” of the defendant’s “mental capacities.” We found no law indicating that individuals who develop a severe mental illness after they are convicted and sentenced to death are ineligible for execution."

Murder.

Seventeen people have been executed for murder in Indonesia since 1998. Eight of these executions have taken place since 2008.

In some of Indonesia’s first executions since 2008, three prisoners were executed in May 2013 after being convicted of premeditated murder.

Five executions for murder took place in 2008:
-Tubagus Yusuf Maulana was executed on July 18, 2008 for the murder of eight people who had come to him seeking a shaman.
-A woman named Sumiarsih, 60, and her son, Sugeng, 44, were executed on July 19, 2008 for the murder of a marine and four members of his family back in 1988.
-Ahmad Suradji, 57, was convicted of murdering at least 42 women and girls in what were called “ritual slayings” and executed by firing squad on July 10, 2008. Reportedly, the man believed he would gain supernatural powers by killing the women.
-Rio Alek Bulo, nicknamed “Hammer” by newspapers, was executed by firing squad on August 8, 2008. Bulo was convicted of murdering four people by way of a hammer while trying to steal their cars.

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death.

In 2008, three men known as the “Bali Bombers” were executed for their involvement in the October 2002 bombing on the island of Bali, which killed 202 people and injured 209.

Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death.

At least 22 people have been executed for drug-related offenses in Indonesia since 2008.

In 2016, three Nigerian men and one Indonesian man were executed for drug-related crimes.

In 2015, Indonesia executed 12 foreign men, one Indonesian woman, and one Vietnamese woman for drug-related offenses.

In March 2013, Indonesia carried out its first execution since 2008 when it executed a Malawian national by firing squad for drug trafficking. In November of the same year, a Pakistani national was executed for drug trafficking.

In June 2008, two Nigerian men, Samuel Iwachekwu Okoye and Hansen Anthony Nwaliosa, were executed by firing squad after being convicted of drug trafficking.

Comments.

Between 2015–2016, all executions were for drug-related offenses. Of the 18 people executed, 15 people were foreign nationals three individuals were Indonesian.

There have been recent challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain crimes and the constitutionality of execution by shooting. A divergence has emerged between the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled that the death penalty does not violate the constitutionally-guaranteed right to life, and the Supreme Court, which recently found, with reference to international instruments, that in some cases capital punishment does violate the right to life.

In Nurhasyim v. State (2008), the Constitutional Court held that execution by shooting was not torture under Indonesia’s Constitution. The Court considered international treaties and norms establishing that torture can be defined as pain or indignity inflicted merely for the sake of punishment; however, the Court found that pain is inherent to execution, that the infliction of pain during execution is not presumptively torture and that death by shooting allows the condemned to retain dignity. The Court suggested that the legislature should consider adopting methods of execution that are less painful, but declined to rule that the choice to execute by shooting rather than by some other less painful method amounts to inflicting pain as torture.

In Sianturi v. State (2007), the Constitutional Court considered the appeal of members of the Bali Nine smuggling plot and held that the death penalty for drug offenses was not unconstitutional as a violation of the right to life. The Court held that Article 28 (protecting the right to life) not only prohibits the government from taking life but also obliges the government to regulate to protect life, and found that drug trafficking is a crime that threatens the lives of citizens. The Court also considered whether the constitutional provision that the right to life cannot be curtailed “under any circumstances” made the death penalty unconstitutional, and ruled that under Indonesia’s obligations under international treaties and customary law, the right to life is currently considered consistent with the application of the death penalty for the most serious crimes. In light of Indonesia’s ratification of the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Court concluded that drug related crimes were “particularly serious crimes” on a par with genocide and crimes against humanity, because both “adversely affect the economic, cultural and political foundation of society” and entail “a danger of incalculable gravity”. The Court upheld the death sentences against the appellants. The Court considered facts only tenuously related to whether appellants could be reformed and failed to consider the attenuated relationship between a drug trafficking transaction and an actual death in determining that appellants had committed crimes of the most serious nature, thus holding that the death penalty for drug trafficking was not a derogation of appellants’ right to life. While we have not found the dissenting opinions, this case is considered significant in that three of the nine judges would have held the death penalty unconstitutional (or unconstitutional for drug trafficking), and reports indicate that lawyers in Indonesia may find the opinion useful for opposing application of the death penalty.

In July 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty for aggravated robbery (a species of aggravated theft under Indonesian law) resulting in death does not violate the constitutional right to life. The Court found that this offense can be categorized as one of the “most serious crimes” and that the death penalty is necessary to provide a deterrent effect. This decision confirmed an earlier 2009 ruling in which the Constitutional Court affirmed that the right to life is not absolute and that capital punishment is a justified restriction of that right.

In contrast, in 2012, the Supreme Court (secretly) commuted the death sentence of Hengky Gunawan to a term of 15 years’ imprisonment for the production and distribution of ecstasy. (The ruling was not made public until a few months later.) The court ruled that the death sentence ran contrary to the defendant’s constitutional right to life as well as the 1999 Law on Human Rights. According to the decision, the death penalty violated the right to life, which the court characterized as a “non-derogable” right which cannot be restricted. The court also held that capital punishment was not in accordance with the aims of criminal sentencing, which should be “educative, preventive and corrective.” Confusingly, however, a media report quoted a Court spokesman as stating that the ruling should not be taken as a shift in the Court’s overall opinion concerning the death penalty. This ruling provoked intense controversy. The judge who wrote the decision resigned amid public pressure. Politicians are now calling for an investigation into whether or not bribes or falsified court rulings were involved. Some also called for criminal charges against the judge. It is unclear to what extent this decision will provide a solid foundation for future constitutionality arguments against the death penalty.

The Constitution does not expressly refer to the judicial application of international human rights treaties. However, Article 11 contemplates that international treaties that will require new laws or amendments to existing laws must be approved by the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (House of Representatives). In practice, the Constitutional Court considers international law when determining the scope of fundamental human rights.

In its first set of Concluding Observations issued for Indonesia in July 2013, the Committee regretted that executions had resumed and that death sentences were imposed for drug offenses, which do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under Article 6 of the ICCPR. The Committee recommended not only that Indonesia amend its legislation so that narcotics-related offenses are not punishable by death, but also that Indonesia commute all the death sentences it had imposed for drug offenses. The Committee also advised Indonesia to reinstate a de facto moratorium on execution and to consider abolishing the death penalty.

In its 2012 Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Indonesia, the Human Rights Council recommended that Indonesia abolish the death penalty, and as a first step towards that goal, establish an official moratorium on executions. Indonesia did not accept these recommendations, stating that it only applied capital punishment as a last resort, selectively, and for serious crimes; that there had been a public debate about the issue; and that the Constitutional Court had ruled in 2007 that capital punishment was consistent with the constitution. The Council members also recommended that Indonesia amend its Penal Code in order to properly prosecute security officials who torture prisoners and otherwise violate their human rights.

In the Human Rights Council’s 2008 Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Indonesia, members recommended that Indonesia abolish the death penalty and cooperate with special procedures. Indonesia responded that it intends to retain the death penalty in a selective and limited manner and supports efforts to strengthen safeguards in application of the death penalty (although the addendum with Indonesia’s responses was later withdrawn).

In 2008, the U.N. Committee Against Torture expressed concern about the “widespread use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions…,” additionally noting that access to lawyers is restricted for pre-trial detainees. The Committee also discussed Indonesia’s obligations under domestic law to maintain control over law, expressing concern that Indonesia did not prevent Aceh from applying a harsh criminal code.

In 2008, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment recommended that the death penalty not be applied in Indonesia “[g]iven the lack of legal safeguards and doubts in a number of instances as to how confessions might have been obtained.” The Rapporteur also regretted the secrecy with which executions are handled and the lack of information about death-sentenced prisoners.

Reports indicate that under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indonesian Advocate’s Code of Ethics (Law No. 18 of 2003), the Law on Human Rights (No. 39 of 1999) and Law on Judicial Power (No. 14 of 1970), all capital defendants are entitled to an attorney immediately upon arrest and throughout the prosecution, and attorneys are obliged to provide free legal assistance to poor defendants. The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that defendants facing the death penalty must be assigned legal counsel by the official concerned “at all stages of examination in the criminal justice process.”

In practice, these rights are often not respected, especially during investigation and pre-trial stages, and thus a fair trial may not be guaranteed. In 2004, Amnesty International reported that some defendants are denied representation during clemency proceedings and in the week before execution. There were more recent reports from Papua that defendants did not have access to attorneys of their choosing and that authorities denied them adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense. Police and guards may restrict attorneys’ access to their clients, coercing bribes to allow defendants their legal rights.

In 2012, British national Lindsay Sandiford, who faced drug smuggling charges and was later sentenced to death, was appointed three different Indonesian lawyers, none of whom reportedly provided her with effective representation. Her first lawyer, appointed by the Indonesian police, allegedly stole money from her and made no effort to investigate her case or represent her interests in police interrogations. She was also unrepresented during at least two early court hearings because she was unable to pay for a lawyer herself.

Some NGO lawyer associations are effective at providing representation to indigents where to partially compensate for the failures of the legal aid system. In 2011, Jakarta Legal Aid handled 959 cases altogether.

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that legal counsel must be provided free of charge to any suspect or accused facing the death penalty “at all stages of examination in the criminal justice process.” This arguably includes all appellate and review proceedings. We were unable to find confirmation that the right to legal representation on appeal was respected in practice.

In 2013, Lindsay Sandiford, a British national on death row in Indonesia, was not provided with any legal representation to file an appeal following her conviction and sentence to death.

The lawyers themselves might be well equipped to handle the trials, but there may be extensive police interference with a lawyer’s ability to effectively represent his client. Amnesty International reported in 2004 that lawyers were not allowed access to their clients to prepare a defense, and were denied access to their clients at various stages after trial, undermining the right to a fair trial. This was exacerbated in some cases due to the lack of adequate interpretation services. More recent reports confirm that lawyers have difficult in accessing the police files of their clients at the pre-trial stage.

There were recent reports from Papua that defendants did not have access to attorneys of their choosing and that authorities denied them adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense.

In 2012, British national Lindsay Sandiford, who faced drug smuggling charges and was later sentenced to death, was appointed three different Indonesian lawyers, none of whom reportedly provided her with effective representation. Her first lawyer, appointed by the Indonesian police, allegedly stole money from her and made no effort to investigate her case or represent her interests in police interrogations. She was also unrepresented during at least her first two court hearings because she was unable to pay for a lawyer herself.

An appeals process in Indonesia can take multiple paths. Criminal cases originate in District Courts: the Pengadilan Agama (religious courts for Muslims, prevalent in the region of Aceh), Pengadilan Militer (courts for all offenses by military personnel) or Pengadilan Negeri (regular secular district courts). Appeals are accordingly to the relevant High Court: the Mahkamah Islam Tinggi (religious high court), the Pengadilan Militer Tinggi (military high court) or the Pengadilan Tinggi (regular secular high court). Individuals can appeal from a court of appeal or a court of first instance to the Supreme Court sitting as a court of cassation (and thus considering questions of law, not fact). Individuals can also appeal to the Constitutional Court to challenge the constitutional validity of a law or punishment, and capital cases for some elected officials would be held before the Constitutional Court.

When an appellant has exhausted ordinary appeals, the appellant may request reconsideration of a final and binding judgment by the Supreme Court in which the court examines questions of fact. This extraordinary request for judicial review, the Peninjauan Kembali, may only be made once. A request for reconsideration may be made on one of the following grounds:

(a) If there are new circumstances that give rise to a strong presumption that, if known at the time of the original trial, they would have resulted in an acquittal, dismissal, rejection of the public prosecutor’s charges, or a less severe sentence being applied to the case; or
(b) If, in the various judgments, there are statements that something has been proven, but the circumstances which form the basis of the reason for the judgment are evidently contradictory with one another;
(c) If a judgment clearly displays a mistake of the judge or a manifest error.

Some sources say that reconsideration is only on the matter of ultimate innocence in the light of new evidence; in practice, it seems that the Supreme Court might reduce a sentence even while upholding a finding of guilt. The Criminal Procedure Code states that requests for reconsideration “shall not be limited to to a certain period of time.” It also provides that the execution of a sentence may not be delayed by a request for reconsideration; however, in practice, it seems that requests for reconsideration automatically suspend executions. According to reports from 2010, the attorney general’s office (AGO) complained to the Supreme Court that individuals who have completed the appeals process can notify the AGO of intent to request reconsideration without facing any time limits on formally filing their motion. The Court did not issue a decision on the matter, but sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.

The Constitution grants the President the power to grant clemency “having regard to the opinion of the Supreme Court” or amnesty with regard to the opinion of the legislature. To request clemency, a death-sentenced prisoner may submit a formal letter to the president with an admission of guilt and request for clemency.

A 2010 amendment to the 2002 Clemency Law changed the pardon process in order to make it quicker and more restrictive. According to a recent Lowy Institute report, “The 2010 amendments took three steps to restrict and accelerate the clemency process. Each prisoner is now restricted to a single plea, which must be submitted within a year of a case gaining final legal standing…The amendment also reduced the time given to the Supreme Court to provide advice to the president, meaning the president must reach a decision within five months of the plea being lodged.” Even though the amendment establishes a deadline, it is not always respected.

No. The U.S. Department of State reports that in all of Indonesia’s courts, panels of judges determine guilt and punishment in an inquisitorial process.

In the U.N. Committee Against Torture’s 2008 Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed concern that suspects are subjected to prolonged police custody for up to 61 days, denied access to attorneys in pre-trial stages and routinely tortured to extract confessions and information. Additionally, there was no systematic registration of or record-keeping on detainees and detention, and no effective legal restriction against the use of forced confessions. In fact, forced confessions were routinely relied upon as evidence during trial. These problems were particularly serious in the province of Aceh, where the Wilayatul Hisbah (“morality police”) exercised a poorly defined and supervised jurisdiction and did not presume the innocence of the accused; recent law enabling capital punishment for morality offenses places individuals (especially women) in Aceh in even greater jeopardy. Other reports also suggest grave inadequacies in Indonesia’s protection of the right to a fair trial, including access to counsel at all stages of a criminal investigation, the presumption of innocence, and protections against torture and self-incrimination or forced, false confessions.

In addition to the national justice system in place, a parallel court system in the region of Aceh utilizes Shariah law instead of the Indonesian Criminal Code. Nineteen district religious courts and one court of appeals hear cases involving Muslims. Trials were generally closed to the public, and defendants often were not supplied with legal representation despite their rights.

Although Indonesia maintains Lapas (prisons) distinct from Rutan (pre-trial detention facilities), reports indicate that Lapas house pre-trial detainees with convicts and that separation among prisoners is determined by bribery or, in some cases, the dangerousness of a particular offender to fellow inmates or detainees. This suggests that death-sentenced inmates might be held separately from other inmates; however, by the end of our research we were not able to confirm this.

Reports indicate that death row inmates are held in prisons across the country. According to a June 2012 report, two death-sentenced foreigners were housed in Nusakambangan Island penitentiary in Cilacap. A June 2013 report indicates that death row inmate Ruben Pata Sambo, who has exhausted his appeals, is held at the Lowokwaru detention center in Malang, East Java. Two of the “Bali 9,” who have also exhausted their appeals, are held at the Kerobokan jail in Bali. French national Serge Atlaoui is incarcerated in Pasir Putih, a maximum security prison.

Conditions are reportedly life threatening and harsh in Indonesia’s prisons. Overcrowding is a serious problem. At the end of 2012, the prison population reached over 144,000 when the official capacity sits at about 97,000. Cells designed to hold 10 prisoners reportedly hold 20 to 30 each due to overcrowding. Small cells (approximately 9 square yards in size) with a formal capacity of two prisoners reportedly hold five people.

Prisoners also lack food, potable water and access to adequate medical care. Corruption is rampant, with many prison officials demanding bribes for better treatment and living conditions and occasionally for necessary medical procedures. Food provided by prisons is insufficient, and guards often seek bribes to allow family members to supplement their relatives’ diets. Wealthier prisoners are able to buy themselves better, sometimes even luxurious, treatment and lodging, in addition to shorter sentences.

While juveniles are supposed to serve their sentences in juvenile-only prisons, they are often mixed in with adults in both prisons and detention centers. Of the 16 juvenile prisons designated as such, only one reportedly functions exclusively as a juvenile facility. Women are held separately from men, generally under significantly better detention conditions. Pretrial detainees were often held with convicted prisoners, despite law stating otherwise.

Authorities reportedly permit prisoners to submit complaints to judicial authorities without censorship and to request investigation of credible allegations of inhumane conditions.

Yes. There were 60 foreign nationals on death row in Indonesia as of October 2018.

(This question was last updated on May 30, 2019.).

Of the 60 foreign nationals on death row in Indonesia, as of October 2018, 47 were from Asia, nine from Africa, three from Europe, and one from North America. We were unable to confirm their nationalities.

(This question was last updated on May 30, 2019.).

Yes. There were seven women on death row as of October 2019—four were convicted of drug-related crimes and three of murder.

(This question was last updated on May 30, 2019.).

We found no reports of juvenile executions or death sentences during our research. A comprehensive 2010 report on the death penalty in Indonesia did not mention its application to juveniles, which is prohibited by law.

Many foreign nationals are held under sentence of death, generally for the crime of drug trafficking. Many foreign nationals are held under sentence of death, generally for the crime of drug trafficking. A researcher interested in differentiation between Indonesians could reference court decisions, which appear to tabulate some of defendants’ demographic information (see http://www.asianlii.org/resources/223.html). Beyond the fact that roughly one-half of Indonesia’s death row population are foreign nationals and roughly one-third of its executions over the 1982-2009 have been of foreign nationals, we did not find specific reports on discriminatory application of the death penalty.

Ending an unofficial five-year moratorium that began in 2008, Indonesia resumed executions in 2013, executing 4 people for separate drug-trafficking and murder offenses in March and May. (There are allegations that the execution of Adami Wilson in March 2013 was precipitated by an interview in which he openly discussed corruption and declared that his death sentence could be commuted for a large enough bribe). In its 2012 Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia did not accept recommendations that it formalize its moratorium on executions, and stated that it only applied capital punishment as a last resort. In its 2012 report to the Human Rights Committee, Indonesia stated that the death penalty was limited to crimes “damaging young generation [sic] or causing the death of a large number of people.”

These recent developments call into questions signs that the government was moving away from the death penalty over the last few years. President Yudhoyono and Marty Natalegawa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have made public statements indicating that Indonesia may be moving towards abolition. Moreover, at the 2012 UN General Assembly’s vote on a global moratorium on executions, Indonesia abstained for the first time instead of voting against the motion. The number of death sentences handed down has also decreased in recent years, with the decline being particularly visible in the area of drug offenses. In 2012, Indonesia issued 11 death sentences.

Additionally, Indonesia’s government has actively sought to prevent its nationals on death rows in other countries from being executed by forming the Migrant Workers Protection taskforce. Although it was disbanded after a year, the taskforce claims to have helped 110 migrant workers avoid the death penalty in China, Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. There are reportedly 420 Indonesians on death row worldwide, including 45 in Saudi Arabia. The Indonesian government also took the extraordinary step of paying “blood money” (compensation to the victim’s family) to citizens sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia. Most recently, in July 2013, the Indonesian government agreed to pay $1.87 million in compensation to a victim’s family in order to obtain a reprieve for an Indonesian domestic worker sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia.

Finally, for the first time, Indonesia’s president commuted 4 drug-traffickers’ death sentences amid a fierce national debate in 2011 and 2012. Prior to this, there had only been one known case of clemency for a capital offender in the previous 30 years. The Supreme Court also secretly commuted the death sentence of drug-trafficker Hengky Gunawan in early 2012 on the grounds that it violated his constitutionally-guaranteed right to life. Observers of the recent commutation phenomenon in Indonesia speculate that the government is taking the initiative in order to better advocate for the release of Indonesian nationals on death row abroad.

Politicians who support the death penalty typically reference human rights violations and terrorism, and sometimes drug trafficking or corruption, as meriting the death penalty. It is therefore also significant that in May 2012, prosecutors asked for life imprisonment rather than the death penalty for Umar Patek, charged with two separate bomb attacks that claimed the lives of 202 people.

Since 2000, application of the death penalty has been sporadic, with almost half of the executions concentrated in 2008, and periods in which no executions have occurred. The average rate of executions has depended heavily upon the executive in power, with 16 of the 25 executions since 2000 occurring under President Yudhoyono (who campaigned on capital punishment), from 2004-2009. Death sentences continue to be handed down regularly.

There have been some amendments to death penalty laws in recent years. In 1998, Indonesia repealed the law that had allowed the death penalty for peaceful dissent. Indonesia also instituted laws in 2000 and 2003 allowing the death penalty for genocide, serious violations of humanitarian law, and terrorism-related acts. In 2009, the semi-autonomous province of Aceh approved an Islamic criminal by-law that provided for stoning for adultery. This punishment was opposed by the Indonesia government, and in 2013 it was withdrawn from the by-law by the legislature of Aceh.

KontraS (Commission for the Dissapeared and Victims of Violence)
Mr. Haris Azhar
Jl Borobudur n° 14
10230 Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 3928564
Fax: +62 21 3926821
harisazhar@gmail.com
www.kontras.org

KontraS (Commission for the Dissapeared and Victims of Violence)
Mr. Puri Kencana Putri
Bureau for Research
Jl Borobudur n° 15
10231 Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 3926983
Fax: +62 21 3926821
purikencanaputri@gmail.com
www.kontras.org.

IMPARSIAL, The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor
Bhatara Ibnu Reza, Operational Director
JL. Slamet Riyadi Raya No.19 Matraman
Jakarta 13150, Indonesia
Tel: (62-21) 859 18656
Fax: (62-21) 859 18650
bhatara@imparsial.org or bhatara.reza@gmail.com
http://www.imparsial.org/

LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute)
Ricky Gunawan, Director
Jl. In East Tebet III, No. 54A
Jakarta Selatan
12820 Indonesia
Tel. +62 21 830 54 50
Fax. +62 21 8370 99 94
contact@lbhmasyarakat.org
www.lbhmasyarakat.org

Other regional organizations also work on death penalty issues in Indonesia:

ADPAN
16/F, Siu On Centre, 188 Lockhart Road
Wan Chai
Hong Kong SAR, China
http://adpan.net/

Asian Human Rights Commission
Unit 701A, Westley Square
48 Hoi Yuen Road
Kwun Tong, KLN
Hong Kong, China
Tel: +(852) 2698 6339
Fax: +(852) 2698 6367
http://www.humanrights.asia/

The AHRC publishes annual human rights reports for a number of countries, including Indonesia (http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport).

Reprieve
PO Box 72054
London EC3P 3BZ
United Kingdom
Tel 020 7553 8140
Fax 020 7553 8189
info@reprieve.org.uk
http://www.reprieve.org.uk.

The Supreme Court’s decisions can be accessed at http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id (in Indonesian). These and other legal resources (in a more easily searched form) are consolidated at AsianLii at: http://www.asianlii.org/resources/223.html.

Amnesty International, Indonesia: A Briefing on the Death Penalty, ASA 21/040/2004, October 2004.

Al Araf, Ardi Manto, Bhatara Ibnu Reza, Ghufron Mabruri, Junaidi Simun, Muchamad Ali Safa’at, Otto Pratama, Poengky Indarti & Rusdi Marpaung, Inveighing Against the Death Penalty in Indonesia, Imparsial, 2010.

Asian Human Rights Commission, The State of Human Rights in Indonesia in 2012, Doc. AHRC-SPR-006-2012, 2012.

Indonesian Working Group on the Advocacy Against Torture (WGAT), Shadow Report Prepared for the UN Committee against Torture in connection to its review of Indonesia’s Second Periodic Report under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, http://www.omct.org/files/2005/09/3070/report_wgat_omct_apt_indonesia_cat_240408.pdf, May 2008.

LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute), Written Submission to the 2013 Secretary-General’s report to the Human Rights Council on the Death Penalty, http://lbhmasyarakat.org/detail_publication.php?id_title=89, Mar. 2013.

Dave McRae, Lowy Institute, A Key Domino? Indonesia’s Death Penalty Politics, http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/key-domino-indonesias-death-penalty-politics, March 1, 2012.

According to a Lowy Institute report from March 2012, media reports indicate that the death penalty in Indonesia has a 75% approval rate amongst the general public.