COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS
REPORT OF INDONESIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the initial to third periodic reports of Indonesia on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, Director General of Human Rights Protection at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia, said that Indonesia was one of the most diverse places on the planet, with 1,072 ethnic and sub-ethnic groups. The geographic and demographic structures, the different levels of economic development, the diversity of socio-cultural backgrounds among Indonesia's ethnic groups should not become a cause for conflict or separatism, or lead to deprivation or marginalization. Instead, through democratization and the respect for human rights, the Government was trying its best to create a sound environment so that it could do away with conflict, separatism, poverty, deprivation, and marginalization within the unitary State of Indonesia.

A representative of Komnas Ham, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights, in a statement, said that, following the May 1998 riots, Komnas Ham had carried out an inquiry which had established enough evidence of gross violations of human rights, and especially crimes against humanity, to submit to the Attorney General for follow-up investigation and prosecution. That had been done on 19 October 2003. That matter had been referred to a commission of the House of Representatives, who had also found that gross violations of human rights had occurred, and the question of requesting that an ad hoc Committee be set up was now scheduled to be considered by the plenary of the House.

In preliminary concluding observations, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai commended Indonesia for its National Action Plans for Human Rights. Also commendable had been the participation of the National Human Rights Commission, Komnas Ham, in the dialogue with Indonesia. Efforts to enhance the ability of Komnas Ham to effectively carry out its mandate, and to ensure that its recommendations were carried out, would be followed closely. There had been a number of concerns voiced on indigenous people, in particular their right to land. In that connection, the Government's mega-Palm Oil Production Project had been the subject of a request for an intervention under the Committee's early warning and urgent action procedure, so that would be a continuing subject of concern. A law on civil registration of marriages was also much needed; that could also go a long way to addressing the dilemma of those who did not profess one of the six religions acknowledged by Indonesian law.

Many Experts were concerned about the status of indigenous peoples in Indonesia. Noting the explanation made by the delegation on the elimination of the terminology of "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" by Presidential Decree, which were explained to have had negative historical connotations in Indonesia, Experts asked for confirmation that the broader concept of indigenous, as set out in international law, was still accepted – in particular, that no decisions affecting indigenous people would be taken by the Government without their informed consent. In that connection, Experts asked about the mining and logging projects planned or taking place in indigenous areas, as well as an extensive palm oil plantation project, and wondered whether the indigenous local populations had been consulted.

The delegation of Indonesia also included Makarim Wibisono, Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and other members of the Permanent Mission of Indonesia in Geneva; and representatives of the Ministry for Social Affairs; the Coordinating Minister of People's Welfare; the National Ombudsman Commission; the Constitutional Court, the Regent of Sanggau of the West Kalimantan Province of Indonesia; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Home Affairs; the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration; the State Ministry for Women's Empowerment; the National Police; the Office of the Attorney General; and the Alliance for Freedom of Religions and Beliefs.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the combined initial to third periodic reports of Indonesia at the end of its session, which concludes on 18 August.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of the Republic of Korea (CERD/C/KOR/14).

Report of Indonesia

The initial to third periodic reports of Indonesia, submitted in one document (CERD/C/IDN/3), says that, since its establishment, Indonesia has given attention to the issue of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, considering the existing pluralism of the Indonesian people, which consists of more than 1,000 ethnic and sub-ethnic groups with different languages, cultures, and traditions. Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights defines discrimination, stipulates the protection of everyone from discrimination, and guarantees every person effective protection, through competent national tribunals and other public institutions against any act of discrimination. By the clear definition of discrimination in Indonesia’s laws, it is obvious that there is no discrimination because of descent, or national or ethnic origin, or nullification or impairment of the equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of public life in Indonesia. There is no discrimination, be it direct or indirect; extreme or ordinary; or everyday discrimination, in Indonesia since the national law guarantees the elimination of discrimination.

One of the concrete and specific measures with regard to social, economic and cultural as well as other aspects, that has been taken by the Government to ensure proper development and protection for racial groups and individuals is the enactment of the Presidential Instruction of 2000 on the Policy Implementation and National Strategy on the development acceleration for the Eastern Part of Indonesia. One of the goals of the Instruction is the urgent resolution of horizontal conflicts between the Dayak people (indigenous people) and the Madura people in West and Central Kalimantan, the conflict between the Ambon and Bugis people in Maluku island, and between Ternate ethnic group and Tidore ethnic group. In addition, the Government has carried out activities to stimulate economic development of that region in five areas: human resources development through strengthening health, education and culture; economic development through utilization of natural resources; provision and optimisation of infrastructure and supra-structure; strengthening of existing institutions; and investment promotion by providing incentives.

Presentation of Report

HARKRISTUTI HARKRISNOWO, Director General of Human Rights Protection at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia, outlining some aspects of the current progress in the difficult transformation into a new Indonesia and the challenges that Indonesia was still facing, said that the process was based on four pillars: democratization; economic rehabilitation; respect for and protection of human rights and upholding the rule of law; and wide-ranging decentralization. In that connection, the series of elections that had been conducted in recent times – parliamentary, presidential and local – had been unanimously cited by international observers as free, democratic, honest and peaceful. Indonesians were thus assured that the democratization process was going in the right direction.

Amendments to the 1945 Constitution had been made in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, in order to strengthen the cause of democratization, human rights and the rule of law in Indonesia, Ms. Harkrisnowo continued. As part of Indonesia's legal reform, a Constitutional Court had been established in 2003, tasked with ensuring that the values and norms guaranteed in the amended Constitution were strictly implemented through a series of substantive and procedural national laws. In the field of law reform, the Government had been conducting a comprehensive review of the laws and regulations that were not in line with the spirit of the amended Constitution and international human rights standards, as well as enacting new laws to strengthen respect for human rights and democracy. In 2006 alone, two important new human rights laws had been adopted, one on witness and victim protection and another on citizenship. This year, a law on trafficking in persons had been enacted.

On 10 July 2006, a new law on citizenship was passed, which aimed to rectify the problems stemming from the previous law that had contained discriminatory provisions against women and children. The new law ended the discriminative provisions of the previous law on ethnic, gender and marital status. Under the old law, Indonesian women married to foreign nationals had been subject to the status of their husbands, which meant that their children would only be accorded the citizenship of their fathers. Under the new law, Indonesian women had the right to decide whether or not they would retain their Indonesian citizenship after marriage, and allowed them to sponsor their husbands to become an Indonesian citizen. Foreigners who legally married Indonesian citizens could now become Indonesian citizens after residing in Indonesia for five consecutive years, Ms. Harkrisnowo said.

Ms. Harkrisnowo said that Indonesia had now completed the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. With those ratifications, the number of core international human rights treaties ratified by Indonesia now stood at six, including also the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, Indonesia had also ratified eight of the International Labour Organization Conventions.

Indonesia had endeavoured with resolute determination to promote and protect human rights, Ms. Harkrisnowo affirmed. The Government was pleased to be able to inform the Committee that, since 2004, no cases that could be categorized as constituting gross violations of human rights had occurred in Indonesia.

Indonesia was one of the most diverse places on the planet, Ms. Harkrisnowo observed. With its 1,072 ethnic and sub-ethnic groups, it was a constant challenge for the Government to capture that diversity and to turn the country into a unitary nation-State. The geographic and demographic structures, the different levels of economic development, the diversity of socio-cultural backgrounds among Indonesia's ethnic groups should not become a cause for conflict or separatism, or lead to deprivation or marginalization. Instead, through democratization and the respect for human rights, the Government was trying its best to create a sound environment so that it could do away with conflict, separatism, poverty, deprivation, and marginalization within the unitary State of Indonesia.

The democratization process within the Government was now increasingly reflected in the direct election of every regional head. In line with the provisions of Law No. 32 of 2004, the election of the regional heads (Pikadas) took place through a direct vote, Ms. Harkrisnowo said. Since June 2005, more than 300 Pikadas had been elected throughout the nation. Those elections had in general been conducted safely, peacefully and democratically. Those who were dissatisfied with the results of the elections had availed themselves of legal recourse through the judicial process. The atmosphere of those elections further encouraged the consolidation of the implementation of regional autonomy, as mandated by the Constitution. The regions also had improved their governance and provided better public services than previously.

No nation grew without trials. Attempts to break up the unity of the nation had occurred on a number of instances, Ms. Harkrisnowo acknowledged. However, they had all been successfully overcome. In a highly heterogeneous and pluralistic society such as Indonesia's, conflicts were inevitable. However, prolonged conflicts and quarrels were destructive to nation-building, in particular since Indonesia had recently been experiencing a number of natural disasters, which had unavoidably reduced the quality of life of the people.

In the past year, owing to measures taken by the Government, threats and security disturbances in various regions had abated, Ms. Harkrisnowo observed. Nevertheless, some conflicts were deeply rooted and it was not easy to reconcile the parties involved. The people living in areas that were afflicted by conflicts such as Aceh, Poso, the Moluccas, and the North Moluccas could now enjoy a life that was much safer and more peaceful. Such was the case in other regions.

Until 1996, in Indonesia the distinction between the native (pribumi) and non-native Indonesians (non-pribumi) had been quite pronounced, Ms. Harkrisnowo stated. Undoubtedly, that was a remnant of the implementation of articles 163 and 131 of the former Dutch East Indies State Regulation. During the three centuries of colonial rule, those articles divided the Indonesian population into three groups: European (governed by European Law); East Asian (each governed by the law of their country of origin, except for business and trade, which followed European law); and indigenous (which followed their native/indigenous law). It also set out the different legal regimes that applied to each group. That law was very discriminatory and placed the indigenous people at the bottom of the social ladder. Meanwhile, while in business matters foreign Orientals had been governed by Western Law, native Indonesians were almost completely outside the protection and jurisdiction of Western Law and Western Courts until 1970.

That background illustrated why, in the original text of the 1945 Constitution, there had been an explicit reference to native Indonesians (pribumi) and non-native Indonesians in order to elevate the status and rights of the formerly neglected native Indonesians who had once been second-class citizens, to that of first class citizens. The distinction made by the Dutch Government had had a wide impact on society in terms of distinction between natives and non-natives, Ms. Harkrisnowo underscored. Furthermore, non-native Indonesian (non-pribumi) terminology somehow applied only to Indonesians of Chinese origin and not to Indonesians of other foreign origins (Arab and Indian, for example). In line with the spirit of human rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination, a Presidential Decree had been issued in 1998 on the use of those terms, and was expected to remove or at least reduce the remnants of the discriminatory distinction.

Ms. Harkrisnowo also noted that in Indonesian legal literature, "Masyarakat Adat" were clans or tribes living in certain geographical locations within the Indonesian archipelago who still retained their customs and cultures. The rules governing those Masyarakat Adat were called Hukum Adat (Adat Law or Customary Law). Most of the Adat Law was unwritten, however examples existed in ancient codes as well as in case law. With regard to Adat Law at the present time, as far as those rules were still upheld in those specific regions, the Government would recognize them. Therefore, in national law, the values in Adat Law were one of the sources of law as long as they were congruent with Indonesian national policy.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

RAGHAVAN VASUDEVAN PILLAI, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, addressing the form and content of the report presented, said that Indonesia would perhaps want to consult the Committee's guidelines, as incorporated in a compilation of harmonized guidelines for all the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, as well as the general recommendations of the Committee, in formulating its next report.

Mr. Pillai also noted that Komnas Ham (the National Human Rights Commission) had an active role to play in addressing issues related to the Committee's concerns, and he would like to see that it played such a role in future interactions with the Committee. In that connection, there were concerns about the acquittal of the armed forces who had been held responsible for gross human rights violations after inquiry by Komnas Ham. Moreover, the ability of Komnas Ham to undertake investigations into such gross violations, as per its mandate, was hampered by a lack of subpoena powers.

Mr. Pillai would appreciate further information on a number of topics touched on in the report including specific action for accelerated development of the eastern region, the National Action Plan on Human Rights and efforts to decentralize that plan, and the abolition of the proof of Indonesia citizenship for a specific group of Indonesian citizens.

There were a number of problems regarding the term "indigenous" in the report. Mr. Pillai cited a number of instances in the report that claimed measures were being taken to ensure the rights of the indigenous people in the country. He wondered how that could be reconciled with the Presidential Decree prohibiting the use of the terms "indigenous" or "non-indigenous" in any government plans, legislation or policies.

Further information would also be appreciated on the efforts of the Working Group on Society Blending, set up in 2002 with the aim of ensuring that Indonesia's ethnic Chinese were integrated into Indonesian society. Mr. Pillai would like to know both what actions had been taken by that Group, and also what the results had been.

Mr. Pillai wished that the Government of Indonesia would take a fresh look at the definition of racial discrimination, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, and ensure that it was incorporated in domestic law. In addition, Indonesian legislation did not appear to sufficiently criminalize offences set out in the Convention. In particular, the Human Rights Code only provided penalties for "gross" violations of human rights law.

Mr. Pillai also sought further information on national human rights institutions mandated especially to address racial discrimination, and special measures taken with regard to uplifting disadvantaged communities.

Furthermore, Mr. Pillai was concerned about the Identification Cards issued by the State, and that religious affiliation was still required to be noted on those cards. In addition, the SBKRI or Proof of Indonesian Citizenry, had apparently been used in a discriminatory way in a number of contexts. The report noted that a 1998 Presidential Decree had stipulated that SBKRI was henceforth not needed to borrow money from banks, and another law abolished the need for SBKRI in marriage registrations. A number of questions presented themselves, including why there was not a broader prohibition, and what the actual situation was on the ground.

Mr. Pillai was also concerned about the transmigration programme that was being carried out, sending settlers from Java, Bali and Madura to the outlying Islands inhabited by indigenous peoples. A recent World Bank study had found that programme had had a major negative and irreversible impact on the indigenous peoples in those areas. Of similar concern was a palm oil plantation project, which was destroying indigenous lands, and which the UN Special R +
1apporteur on indigenous peoples had singled out in a report as particularly destructive to the welfare of indigenous lands. He would appreciate more information.

With regard to the May 1998 riot, which the Government of Indonesia had acknowledged in its report to have had a racial component, what had been the results of the fact-finding team assigned to look into those events? Moreover, what actions, if any, in particular prosecutions, had been undertaken and what had been their outcome, Mr. Pillai asked.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the state of implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, dividing Papua into two provinces; what had been the results of the previous five-year National Plan of Action on Human Rights, in particular as regarded racial discrimination; what had been the findings of the comprehensive study on racial discrimination undertaken by the W orking Committee on Evaluating Discriminatory Laws; why Indonesia had not ratified the UN Convention on Refugees and its Protocol; a breakdown of the composition of the military and the police forces; a definition of which groups were considered as minorities in Indonesia; what impact the tsunami had on efforts to combat discrimination; whether the criminal code sufficiently protected vulnerable populations from sexual tourism; and what had happened to the people who had been displaced and exploited by the colonial rubber industry.

Many Experts were concerned about the status of indigenous peoples in Indonesia. An Expert, noting the explanation made by the delegation on the elimination of the terminology of "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" by Presidential Decree, which explained the negative historical connotation attached to those terms, wondered if the delegation could then confirm whether the broader concept of indigenous, as set out in international law, was still accepted – in particular, that no decisions affecting indigenous people would be taken by the Government without their informed consent. Several Experts asked about the mining and logging projects planned or taking place in indigenous areas, and wondered whether the indigenous local populations had been consulted, or whether consultative mechanisms were envisaged, for such projects.

An Expert pointed out the logical flaw in the report, which stated that the anti-discrimination laws in force in the country meant that there was no discrimination. Another Expert said that, in addition, the report itself contained a number of references to acts of discrimination, not least the riots in which ethnic Chinese had been targeted.

Statement by the Indonesian Commission on Human Rights (Komnas Ham)

A representative of Komnas Ham, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights, said Komnas Ham was an independent institution, and was mandated under the 1999 law by which it was to established to study and research human rights issues, to raise public awareness on human rights issues, to monitor the situation of human rights in the country and to engage in mediation.

In accordance with its mandate, Komnas Ham had studied and examined the draft act on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (currently before the Parliament). In that context, Komnas Ham drew attention to the fact that the Indonesian Government had ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination by means of Act No. 29 of 1999. Act No. 29 set out a very broad definition of discrimination, which included not just ethnic origin and race, but categories such as social status, gender, language and political belief. Komnas Ham therefore did not support the adoption of the new draft act on the elimination of racial discrimination, as the Government had already adopted Act No. 29, in which the issue of discrimination was not limited to racial discrimination.

Komnas Ham also wished to highlight that, although there was no written regulation in Indonesia setting out that there were only six official religions, the laws on identity cards, which required the holder's religion to be shown, and only recognized six religions for that purpose (Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian), effectively established that there were only six religions legally recognized in the country.

As to the May 1998 riots, Komnas Ham had carried out a pro justicia inquiry into those events. That inquiry had established enough evidence of gross violations of human rights, and especially crimes against humanity, to submit to the Attorney General for follow-up investigation and prosecution, which it had done on 19 October 2003. To further ensure follow-up, Komnas Ham met with the Chairperson of the House of Representatives on 27 October 2003, requesting that the House recommend to the President that an ad hoc human rights court be set up to look into the violations that occurred in the May riot. That matter had been referred to a commission of the House of Representatives, who had also found that gross violations of human rights had occurred, and the question of requesting that an ad hoc Committee be set up was now scheduled to be considered by the plenary of the House.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

Responding to oral questions by Experts, the delegation said, with regard to anti-discrimination legislation, that Law No. 29 of 1999 had strengthened Indonesian legislation in that sphere. In addition, an anti-discrimination bill was currently before the Parliament.

As for Presidential Instruction No. 26 of 1998 abolishing of SBKRI, or Proof of Indonesian Citizenry, for Indonesians of Chinese origin, while in practice there might be breaches of that law on the ground, there were measures in place to ensure the law's implementation. As to why only three regions had issued their own regulations stipulating the abolition of SBKRI, the delegation noted that in theory that should not be necessary; the Presidential decree did effectively abolish the practice throughout the country. However, it might be that that decree had conflicted with local laws, and considering that substantial autonomy had been granted to the regions, those regions may have had to enact their own laws to address that fact.

The term "indigenous" was used in Indonesia to mean those people who had inhabited the islands from time immemorial, and whose ancestors were born on one of the islands, the delegation said. There was no distinction between the definition set out by the International Labour Organization of indigenous peoples and that understood by the Government.

On the issue of raising the standard of living of those in outlying islands, the delegation stressed that not all peoples were eager to modernize and might wish to retain their own traditions. The Government sought a balance between allowing people to choose their way of life, while keeping a sharp eye on whether their health, economic and educational standards met the minimum level necessary for a modern society.

The delegation said there was no specific law recognizing religions. There was a 1969 law that did acknowledge that there were five religions in Indonesia – Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu and Buddhist – however, that was not to be understood as establishing those religions as official, nor was it understood as an exhaustive list or restrictive list. There were no sanctions inflicted on those practising other religions, and there was no restriction on freedom of belief. As to whether Indonesia was secular or a religious State, Indonesia did not consider itself as a secular state, as it mentioned belief in God in its founding principles; however, it was based on a constitution rather than on a holy book.

Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts

An Expert, referring to the comment made by the delegation that the definition of indigenous as understood by Indonesia was similar to that set out in ILO Convention No. 169, noted that perhaps that should encourage the Government to ratify that instrument.

On indigenous lands, an Expert, while acknowledging statements by the delegation on abuses by various companies involving mining and logging operations in indigenous areas, stressed the need for the Government to regulate such business activities. Also, were there measures in place to train police and prosecution authorities to be aware of those sorts of violations?

As for the delegation's comments regarding modernity and traditions, an Expert underscored the need to undertake consultations with the parties involved concerning modernization, and to develop a consensus. That was particularly pertinent in cases such as the introduction of various industries in indigenous areas.

Replies by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation agreed that a regulatory framework was necessary to deal with the situation of indigenous lands. In that framework, a New Investment Law had been launched that included provisions on corporate responsibility. On the institutional side, the Investment Law instructed the Coordinating Board of Investment to coordinate the implementation of the investment policies. Further, there was a need for training, and that was also being undertaken, notably with the help of international cooperation from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Indigenous land issues were ruled by Adat Law (Traditional Law) the delegation said. There were no individual property rights in Adat Law. Any decisions about what could be done with the land had to be taken by communal decision. If consultations between companies wishing to use indigenous land could not be resolved through negotiations, that case could be appealed to a higher legal authority to determine whether Adat Law applied to the land or whether those lands had lost their status over the course of time.

As for social services for indigenous communities, the Indonesian Government had launched a policy to protect and empower those communities. There was also a draft bill being finalized on the protection of remote traditional communities, which aimed at the protection of their cultural norms and environmental wisdom, through measures by Government and civil society.

The delegation read out the extensive legal regulations concerning the palm oil plantation project that was being conducted in the Kalimantan province along the Malaysian border. It was noted that that plan had been subject to extensive study to ensure that it would satisfy environmental safeguards and that it would not harm the local populations. It had been determined that it had satisfied important needs, while taking full account of and ensure the greatest benefit for the people. The Government had the Constitutional right to develop land in the country for the benefit of the population. Consultations with the local indigenous populations had to be carried out in that regard.

In terms of what was being done to protect vulnerable populations in the aftermath of the tsunami, the delegation noted that a child protection element was an important part of the recovery process. A child protection programme had been established in cooperation with the United Nations Children's Fund, as well as a helpline for children, in particular to deal with issues such as violence against children and trafficking. Shelters had also been set up, to protect children from harassment, violence and trafficking, and a registration and reunification programme, with the help of Save the Children UK, helped to try and trace the families of young victims of the tsunami.

In that connection, the delegation noted that a programme against commercial sexual exploitation was in place, with a focus on the areas of Bali and Batan, where sexual tourism was more prevalent, and a national commission had been set up, and tasked with drawing up a plan of action to combat commercial sexual exploitation and to help its victims.

With regard to the police, the Indonesian National Police had been reformed in 1999. Under that reform, human rights training was a part of the curriculum of the police academy. It also represented a break from the old style, paramilitary police, and contained a focus on community policing.

Turning to the May 1998 Riots, those had not been a solitary incident, but had been a series of incidents linked to the political and social upheaval taking place in Indonesia at that time, with the transition from the Government of former President Soeharto. Ethnic Chinese were not the only ones who had been victims, and the violence had not targeted any one ethnic group or race. Those had been the findings of the fact-finding commission set up to look into those incidents. There had, however, been gross violations of human rights. The matter was now before parliament, who had the authority to request that an ad hoc human rights tribunal be set up to further investigate the incidents and prosecute those responsible.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, RAGHAVAN VASUDEVAN PILLAI, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Indonesia, thanked the delegation for their answers. There had been very positive steps taken by Indonesia, and it was hoped that the comments by Experts would stimulate further action to improve the situation in the country.

Mr. Pillai commended Indonesia for not making any reservations to the Convention. The National Action Plans for Human Rights – for Indonesia had just recently instituted its second such plan – were noteworthy, and the Committee would look forward to hearing progress made in that regard. Also commendable had been the participation of the National Human Rights Commission, Komnas Ham, in the dialogue with Indonesia. The Committee would be looking with interest to see what efforts Indonesia undertook in future to enhance the ability of Komnas Ham to effectively carry out its mandate, and also that its recommendations were carried out.

Highlighting important aspects of the discussion, Mr. Pillai noted that there had been a number of concerns voiced by Experts with regard to indigenous people, their religion and language, but in particular their right to land. In that connection, the mega-Oil Palm Production Project had been the subject of a request for an intervention under the Committee's early warning and urgent action procedure, and so that would be a continuing subject of concern.

The draft bill on an anti-discrimination law was welcome, Mr. Pillai said, in particular in view of the need to ensure proper sanctions for discrimination.

As for religious issues, apparently the number of religions recognized by the Government had gone up from five to six, Mr. Pillai commented. It was to be hoped that further reforms would be carried out so that no discrimination occurred for those who did not subscribe to one of those religions, in particular in the context of the SBKRI (Indonesian Identity Document). A law on civil registration of marriages was also much needed; that could also go a long way to addressing the dilemma of those who did not profess one of the six religions acknowledged by Indonesian law.

Finally, Mr. Pillai underscored that a greater involvement of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of the Convention and in protecting and highlighting cases of racial discrimination was to be hoped for.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD07022E