Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami
Indonesian Version
Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
The slow process of the Draft Bill on Criminal Code (“Draft Bill”) seems to continue without indication as to when Indonesians will have a new criminal code that is not drafted by the Dutch colonial government. After dealing with corruption and capital punishment matters, lawmakers must now decide on whether the Draft Bill should include the provisions on gross violation of human rights.
Civil society organizations are in the forefront on this matter, requesting the parliament to exclude gross violation of human rights from the Draft Bill. They argued that such provision—currently stipulated under Article 400-406 of the Draft Bill—does not conform with the necessary concepts and principles in handling such crime.
Yati Andriyani, Deputy Coordinator of Advocacy Division at KontraS, referred to the Elucidation of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court, which firmly declared that serious human rights violations is classified as an extraordinary crime. In other words, proceedings of a serious human right violation require a special mechanism which is entirely different compared to the common criminal proceedings.
Mrs. Andriyani firmly believed that the Draft Bill cannot adequately accommodate such special mechanism. She gave examples from the Draft Bill that incorporated the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principles, principles that does not apply in gross violation of human rights cases.
Mrs. Andriyani further elaborated that the nature of crimes against humanity is the enemy of mankind (hostis humani generis). International law also enables a universal jurisdiction for this type of crime, allowing foreign states and international authorities to take measures, even though the crime is committed on Indonesian soils. Due to the nature of this crime, the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principle are not applicable.
Mrs. Andriyani recommended that it is better if the Draft Bill includes human rights violation that are not a serious crime, such as prohibition of demonstration, spreading hatred against certain social group, unlawful apprehension and confinement, as well as torture. She further reminded that the Human Rights Law already regulated human right norms which must be uphold by the Draft Bill.
Also commenting on the issue, Satrio Wirataru, KontraS’ Staff of Civil and Political Rights Defense Division, asserted that the Criminal Code is supposedly aimed at protecting civil society. The Draft Bill, however, shows the other way around. For instance, the provision regarding “government defamation which causes civil unrest”. This article, according to Mr. Wirataru, does not provide a detailed explanation on what can be categorized as “unrest” and has the potential to become an obscure provision.
“The [current version of] Draft Bill stipulates provisions that are more beneficial to the government than to civil society,” Mr. Wirataru concluded.
(hot/ds)
Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
The Cirminal Code. Photo by: SGP
The slow process of the Draft Bill on Criminal Code (“Draft Bill”) seems to continue without indication as to when Indonesians will have a new criminal code that is not drafted by the Dutch colonial government. After dealing with corruption and capital punishment matters, lawmakers must now decide on whether the Draft Bill should include the provisions on gross violation of human rights.
Civil society organizations are in the forefront on this matter, requesting the parliament to exclude gross violation of human rights from the Draft Bill. They argued that such provision—currently stipulated under Article 400-406 of the Draft Bill—does not conform with the necessary concepts and principles in handling such crime.
Yati Andriyani, Deputy Coordinator of Advocacy Division at KontraS, referred to the Elucidation of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court, which firmly declared that serious human rights violations is classified as an extraordinary crime. In other words, proceedings of a serious human right violation require a special mechanism which is entirely different compared to the common criminal proceedings.
Mrs. Andriyani firmly believed that the Draft Bill cannot adequately accommodate such special mechanism. She gave examples from the Draft Bill that incorporated the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principles, principles that does not apply in gross violation of human rights cases.
Mrs. Andriyani further elaborated that the nature of crimes against humanity is the enemy of mankind (hostis humani generis). International law also enables a universal jurisdiction for this type of crime, allowing foreign states and international authorities to take measures, even though the crime is committed on Indonesian soils. Due to the nature of this crime, the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principle are not applicable.
Mrs. Andriyani recommended that it is better if the Draft Bill includes human rights violation that are not a serious crime, such as prohibition of demonstration, spreading hatred against certain social group, unlawful apprehension and confinement, as well as torture. She further reminded that the Human Rights Law already regulated human right norms which must be uphold by the Draft Bill.
Also commenting on the issue, Satrio Wirataru, KontraS’ Staff of Civil and Political Rights Defense Division, asserted that the Criminal Code is supposedly aimed at protecting civil society. The Draft Bill, however, shows the other way around. For instance, the provision regarding “government defamation which causes civil unrest”. This article, according to Mr. Wirataru, does not provide a detailed explanation on what can be categorized as “unrest” and has the potential to become an obscure provision.
“The [current version of] Draft Bill stipulates provisions that are more beneficial to the government than to civil society,” Mr. Wirataru concluded.
(hot/ds)
Indonesian Version
Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
The slow process of the Draft Bill on Criminal Code (“Draft Bill”) seems to continue without indication as to when Indonesians will have a new criminal code that is not drafted by the Dutch colonial government. After dealing with corruption and capital punishment matters, lawmakers must now decide on whether the Draft Bill should include the provisions on gross violation of human rights.
Civil society organizations are in the forefront on this matter, requesting the parliament to exclude gross violation of human rights from the Draft Bill. They argued that such provision—currently stipulated under Article 400-406 of the Draft Bill—does not conform with the necessary concepts and principles in handling such crime.
Yati Andriyani, Deputy Coordinator of Advocacy Division at KontraS, referred to the Elucidation of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court, which firmly declared that serious human rights violations is classified as an extraordinary crime. In other words, proceedings of a serious human right violation require a special mechanism which is entirely different compared to the common criminal proceedings.
Mrs. Andriyani firmly believed that the Draft Bill cannot adequately accommodate such special mechanism. She gave examples from the Draft Bill that incorporated the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principles, principles that does not apply in gross violation of human rights cases.
Mrs. Andriyani further elaborated that the nature of crimes against humanity is the enemy of mankind (hostis humani generis). International law also enables a universal jurisdiction for this type of crime, allowing foreign states and international authorities to take measures, even though the crime is committed on Indonesian soils. Due to the nature of this crime, the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principle are not applicable.
Mrs. Andriyani recommended that it is better if the Draft Bill includes human rights violation that are not a serious crime, such as prohibition of demonstration, spreading hatred against certain social group, unlawful apprehension and confinement, as well as torture. She further reminded that the Human Rights Law already regulated human right norms which must be uphold by the Draft Bill.
Also commenting on the issue, Satrio Wirataru, KontraS’ Staff of Civil and Political Rights Defense Division, asserted that the Criminal Code is supposedly aimed at protecting civil society. The Draft Bill, however, shows the other way around. For instance, the provision regarding “government defamation which causes civil unrest”. This article, according to Mr. Wirataru, does not provide a detailed explanation on what can be categorized as “unrest” and has the potential to become an obscure provision.
“The [current version of] Draft Bill stipulates provisions that are more beneficial to the government than to civil society,” Mr. Wirataru concluded.
(hot/ds)
Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
The Cirminal Code. Photo by: SGP
The slow process of the Draft Bill on Criminal Code (“Draft Bill”) seems to continue without indication as to when Indonesians will have a new criminal code that is not drafted by the Dutch colonial government. After dealing with corruption and capital punishment matters, lawmakers must now decide on whether the Draft Bill should include the provisions on gross violation of human rights.
Civil society organizations are in the forefront on this matter, requesting the parliament to exclude gross violation of human rights from the Draft Bill. They argued that such provision—currently stipulated under Article 400-406 of the Draft Bill—does not conform with the necessary concepts and principles in handling such crime.
Yati Andriyani, Deputy Coordinator of Advocacy Division at KontraS, referred to the Elucidation of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court, which firmly declared that serious human rights violations is classified as an extraordinary crime. In other words, proceedings of a serious human right violation require a special mechanism which is entirely different compared to the common criminal proceedings.
Mrs. Andriyani firmly believed that the Draft Bill cannot adequately accommodate such special mechanism. She gave examples from the Draft Bill that incorporated the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principles, principles that does not apply in gross violation of human rights cases.
Mrs. Andriyani further elaborated that the nature of crimes against humanity is the enemy of mankind (hostis humani generis). International law also enables a universal jurisdiction for this type of crime, allowing foreign states and international authorities to take measures, even though the crime is committed on Indonesian soils. Due to the nature of this crime, the statute of limitation and the ne bis in idem principle are not applicable.
Mrs. Andriyani recommended that it is better if the Draft Bill includes human rights violation that are not a serious crime, such as prohibition of demonstration, spreading hatred against certain social group, unlawful apprehension and confinement, as well as torture. She further reminded that the Human Rights Law already regulated human right norms which must be uphold by the Draft Bill.
Also commenting on the issue, Satrio Wirataru, KontraS’ Staff of Civil and Political Rights Defense Division, asserted that the Criminal Code is supposedly aimed at protecting civil society. The Draft Bill, however, shows the other way around. For instance, the provision regarding “government defamation which causes civil unrest”. This article, according to Mr. Wirataru, does not provide a detailed explanation on what can be categorized as “unrest” and has the potential to become an obscure provision.
“The [current version of] Draft Bill stipulates provisions that are more beneficial to the government than to civil society,” Mr. Wirataru concluded.
(hot/ds)