| The National Commission on Violence against Women (Komnas Perempuan), as part of the monitoring it performs as a national human rights mechanism, found evidence of layered vulnerability in the cases of those facing the death penalty. There were indications of women migrant workers being victims of drug syndicates and trafficking in persons as well as arbitrary treatment in the justice process. Komnas Perempuan’s monitoring of 12 migrant workers sentenced to death overseas as well as their families and four women sentenced to death in Indonesia revealed the following facts: |
1. International drug trafficking networksplay on the vulnerability of women migrant workers who have passports and documents to move between countries and are far away from their family’s care and the protection of the state. These women migrant workers are struggling to drag themselves and their families out of poverty and get away from the violence they have suffered in their homes. The drug networks use various means such as intimate relationships to trick women into becoming couriers. Ironically, these women migrant workers who are exploited by drug syndicates are not recognised as victims by the state and law enforcers;
2. International narcotic syndicates lead a stray young women, women victims of violence particularly domestic violence, poor women and women with limited education and access to information;
3. Women facing the death penalty on charges of narcotics crimes experience layers of violence and discrimination because the perpetrators tend to be those close to them or tend to use dating or intimate relationships even husbands or close friends. They are vulnerable to becoming victims of sexual violence, being beaten, ostracised by their families, suffering condemnation and judgement by society;
4. Women facing the death penalty on charges of narcotic crimes suffer violence and exploitation during the investigation process. Access to justice is limited, including lack of legal counselling and court decisions that do not consider their position as victims of trafficking in persons and narcotic crimes. Their fate is ignored by courts, the high incidence of couriers as victims not being accompanied by improvements in investigations, and inadequate efforts being made into the eradication of narcotics;
5. Those sentenced to death initially choose not to be exposed in the media to avoid further risk, only allowing media to report at the final moment when access to justice is almost at an end and their rights are limited leading up to execution;
6. The death penalty not only tortures and punishes the person to be executed, but also their entire family. The cruelty of the punishment is in its form and process, leading to a lifetime of trauma that manifests in a variety of ways, from suicide attempts, death of family members, stroke andintractable illness, mental and memory disorders, to loss of will to live and extreme hatred. For these reasons the death penalty violates human rights.
Therefore, in response to this third round of executions, Komnas Perempuan states:
1. Komnas Perempuan strongly supports serious efforts by the state to eradicate narcotics at the root. However, Komnas Perempuan opposes using the death penalty as a solution, especially for women victims of trafficking in persons who have been tricked into becoming drug couriers;
2. Calls on the State to review and consider delaying the execution, especially of MU (see details in the fact sheet) who is currently in the process of seeking clemency after receiving late notice of her judicial review rejection. MU is a victim of domestic violence who was forced to become a migrant worker by her husband, and was eventually trapped by an international drug syndicate. There are indications that MU is a victim of trafficking in persons.
3. Urges the President of the Republic of Indonesia to grant clemency appeals, particularly for MU, so that those sentenced to death have access to all legal processes and the state is not negligent in taking the life of someone who should be protected by the state;
4. The state should reform access to justice particularly for women victims through:
a. Improving the investigation and handling of women victims of trafficking in persons who are trapped and tricked into becoming drug couriers;
b. Strengthening the legal system and providing opportunities for those sentenced to death, particularly women victims of violence and trafficking in persons, to obtain access to justice and fair and comprehensive legal processes;
c. Calling for due care by all law enforcement agencies in processing the cases of women who are trapped into becoming narcotic couriers and avoiding the death penalty so that justice is not perverted for women victims;
5. Calls for all parties, particularly the media, to not re-victimise those sentenced to death and their families through news articles, because they have long had to live with the stigma and trauma of their situation.
Contacts:
Azriana, Head (0811672441)
YuniyantiChuzaifah, Deputy Head (081311130330)
Sri Nurherwati, Policy and Law Reform Sub-commission (082210434703)
Adriana Venny, International Advocacy Commissioner (0856 1090 619)
Imam Nahei, Commissioner (082335346591)
FACT SHEET
Death row inmate MU framed by narcotics syndicate
This fact sheet was compiled based on monitoring by Komnas Perempuan on the vulnerability of
women facing the death penalty in relation to crimes of trafficking in persons and narcotics. Monitoring
was conducted on 18 May, 2 June and 18 June 2016.
Background: poverty and domestic violence
1. MU, daughter of S, is a former domestic worker, born in Sukohardjo Central Java on 30 January 1974. She is married with one daughter.
2. MU was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband who was fond of drinking, gambling and having affairs.
3. MU was forced by her husband to work as a migrant worker in Taiwan for two years. She was the family’s breadwinner, but the money she sent back home was all spent by her husband.
4. She eventually decided to separate from her husband when she was 25 and continue supporting her child by working as a migrant worker. Tricked into becoming a drug courier
5. After divorcing her husband, MU planned to work in Taiwan again as a migrant worker. When she was organising her work documents in Jakarta, in Sarinah Thamrin to be precise, she met Jerry, a man who claimed to be from Canada with a trading business. It was only later that MU remembered that since she’d been in Taiwan she had been approached by people who she guessed knew Jerry.
6. MU and Jerry dated for three months. While they were dating, Jerry really spoiled MU with attention and gifts, even sending frequent presents to her parents. Jerry wouldn’t let MU return to her work in Taiwan and promised he would marry her.
7. On 16 October 2001, MU was invited by Jerry on a holiday to Nepal. On 17 October 2001, MU left for Nepal, via Singapore, travelling alone. She transited in Thailand to meet with Jerry. However, Jerry had left before her. MU and Jerry met in Nepal and travelled around for three days.
8. On 20 October 2001, Jerry returned to Jakarta saying he had to attend to his business. MU was asked to stay in Nepal because he wanted her to bring a hand bag. He wanted MU to have this bag because the one she had brought was no good and also as a sample to show his business customers in Jakarta.
9. MU thought she would only wait a day or two, but she ended up having to wait over a week. Every day Jerry telephoned MU telling her to be patient waiting for his friend that would bring her the bag.
10. As requested by Jerry, MU met with two of Jerry’s friends named Muhammad and Badru in Studio 54 club. Muhammad gave the hand bag to MU.
11. MU asked why the bag was so heavy, to which Muhammad replied that it was because the leather was high quality and well-made.
12. MU returned to Indonesia on 31 October 2001 via Sukarno Hatta airport. During the flight the handbag was together with her in the cabin. On landing in Jakarta, MU forgot to take her bag from the baggage compartment. She went out of the airport and was about to get in a taxi. However, remembering the bag she went back in to search for it in the lost and found.
13. MU found the bag, but when she was on her way out the officer x-rayed her bag.
14. Because she didn’t feel like she was hiding anything, MU gave him her bag to be examined and scanned in the x-ray machine. At that point it was found that there was 1.1 kg heroine hidden in the lining of the bag. MU was arrested at Soekarno-Hatta airport.
15. MU tried to contact Jerry but the number was already non active. Similarly, the friends who knew Jerry couldn’t be contacted. Only later she found out that Jerry had many aliases’/ disguises. Legal Process
16. MU experienced abuse three times, on examination at the airport, on the way to the police station (MU was taken to a hotel) and on further investigation. The form of abuse she experienced was repeated beating and sexual violence (sexual assault and attempted rape). MU was forced to confess that this heroine belonged to her. To avoid abuse MU said she fasted, but she was still beaten.
17. On interrogation in police headquarters, MU was asked about her connection with the narcotics network which she didn’t know anything about.
18. MU signed her police investigation report without understanding the details of the document, because she felt stressed and panicky.
19. MU still feels the effects of this abuse today, with frequent flashes disturbing her vision.
20. After her arrest and during her imprisonment, MU’s family distanced themselves and the relationships have been severed. The only member of her family who visits her is her child, and that was after she could get out of her father’s house (MU’s former husband). When her daughter married, MU’s exhusband told the family of her daughter’s new husband that MU was dead. MU’s daughter believes her mother is innocent. Legal Action Taken
21. At the first court level MU was accompanied by a legal counsel provided by the police. The legal counsel only arrived at the time of the trial and never discussed her defence, only asking her to confess the crime. At the next legal stage MU was accompanied by a different legal counsel.
22. MU was sentenced to death at the first court level, based on decision No. 140/Pid.B/2002/PN.Tng. 23. An appeal was made and the result upheld the decision of the District Court which was the death penalty with High Court Decision No. 175/Pid/2002/PT.Bdg. 24. MU filed an appeal and the result was Supreme Court Decision No. 1771 k/Pid/2002 : Refusal of this appeal.
25. On 28 April 2014 a judicial review was filed. Information obtained from the Supreme Court website showed the judicial review decision had been issued; Refusal. This decision was published on 15 August 2014 and sent to Tangerang District Court on 14 March 2016.
26. MU and her lawyer were waiting for the judicial review decision to be formerly given in order to request clemency from the President. The judicial review decision was given to MU at the same time she was met by officers to move her to Cilacap Prison on Saturday 23 July 2016. She was not accompanied by her lawyer at the time.
27. MU has been imprisoned for almost 15 years. During this time she has been very actively involved in pioneering positive development activities in the prison, including the development of cultural arts, organic farming and spiritual activities. MU also gives strength to her fellow prisoners, especially those with long sentences or those sentenced to death. 28. MU is currently taking further legal action through a request for clemency
1. MU, daughter of S, is a former domestic worker, born in Sukohardjo Central Java on 30 January 1974. She is married with one daughter.
2. MU was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband who was fond of drinking, gambling and having affairs.
3. MU was forced by her husband to work as a migrant worker in Taiwan for two years. She was the family’s breadwinner, but the money she sent back home was all spent by her husband.
4. She eventually decided to separate from her husband when she was 25 and continue supporting her child by working as a migrant worker. Tricked into becoming a drug courier
5. After divorcing her husband, MU planned to work in Taiwan again as a migrant worker. When she was organising her work documents in Jakarta, in Sarinah Thamrin to be precise, she met Jerry, a man who claimed to be from Canada with a trading business. It was only later that MU remembered that since she’d been in Taiwan she had been approached by people who she guessed knew Jerry.
6. MU and Jerry dated for three months. While they were dating, Jerry really spoiled MU with attention and gifts, even sending frequent presents to her parents. Jerry wouldn’t let MU return to her work in Taiwan and promised he would marry her.
7. On 16 October 2001, MU was invited by Jerry on a holiday to Nepal. On 17 October 2001, MU left for Nepal, via Singapore, travelling alone. She transited in Thailand to meet with Jerry. However, Jerry had left before her. MU and Jerry met in Nepal and travelled around for three days.
8. On 20 October 2001, Jerry returned to Jakarta saying he had to attend to his business. MU was asked to stay in Nepal because he wanted her to bring a hand bag. He wanted MU to have this bag because the one she had brought was no good and also as a sample to show his business customers in Jakarta.
9. MU thought she would only wait a day or two, but she ended up having to wait over a week. Every day Jerry telephoned MU telling her to be patient waiting for his friend that would bring her the bag.
10. As requested by Jerry, MU met with two of Jerry’s friends named Muhammad and Badru in Studio 54 club. Muhammad gave the hand bag to MU.
11. MU asked why the bag was so heavy, to which Muhammad replied that it was because the leather was high quality and well-made.
12. MU returned to Indonesia on 31 October 2001 via Sukarno Hatta airport. During the flight the handbag was together with her in the cabin. On landing in Jakarta, MU forgot to take her bag from the baggage compartment. She went out of the airport and was about to get in a taxi. However, remembering the bag she went back in to search for it in the lost and found.
13. MU found the bag, but when she was on her way out the officer x-rayed her bag.
14. Because she didn’t feel like she was hiding anything, MU gave him her bag to be examined and scanned in the x-ray machine. At that point it was found that there was 1.1 kg heroine hidden in the lining of the bag. MU was arrested at Soekarno-Hatta airport.
15. MU tried to contact Jerry but the number was already non active. Similarly, the friends who knew Jerry couldn’t be contacted. Only later she found out that Jerry had many aliases’/ disguises. Legal Process
16. MU experienced abuse three times, on examination at the airport, on the way to the police station (MU was taken to a hotel) and on further investigation. The form of abuse she experienced was repeated beating and sexual violence (sexual assault and attempted rape). MU was forced to confess that this heroine belonged to her. To avoid abuse MU said she fasted, but she was still beaten.
17. On interrogation in police headquarters, MU was asked about her connection with the narcotics network which she didn’t know anything about.
18. MU signed her police investigation report without understanding the details of the document, because she felt stressed and panicky.
19. MU still feels the effects of this abuse today, with frequent flashes disturbing her vision.
20. After her arrest and during her imprisonment, MU’s family distanced themselves and the relationships have been severed. The only member of her family who visits her is her child, and that was after she could get out of her father’s house (MU’s former husband). When her daughter married, MU’s exhusband told the family of her daughter’s new husband that MU was dead. MU’s daughter believes her mother is innocent. Legal Action Taken
21. At the first court level MU was accompanied by a legal counsel provided by the police. The legal counsel only arrived at the time of the trial and never discussed her defence, only asking her to confess the crime. At the next legal stage MU was accompanied by a different legal counsel.
22. MU was sentenced to death at the first court level, based on decision No. 140/Pid.B/2002/PN.Tng. 23. An appeal was made and the result upheld the decision of the District Court which was the death penalty with High Court Decision No. 175/Pid/2002/PT.Bdg. 24. MU filed an appeal and the result was Supreme Court Decision No. 1771 k/Pid/2002 : Refusal of this appeal.
25. On 28 April 2014 a judicial review was filed. Information obtained from the Supreme Court website showed the judicial review decision had been issued; Refusal. This decision was published on 15 August 2014 and sent to Tangerang District Court on 14 March 2016.
26. MU and her lawyer were waiting for the judicial review decision to be formerly given in order to request clemency from the President. The judicial review decision was given to MU at the same time she was met by officers to move her to Cilacap Prison on Saturday 23 July 2016. She was not accompanied by her lawyer at the time.
27. MU has been imprisoned for almost 15 years. During this time she has been very actively involved in pioneering positive development activities in the prison, including the development of cultural arts, organic farming and spiritual activities. MU also gives strength to her fellow prisoners, especially those with long sentences or those sentenced to death. 28. MU is currently taking further legal action through a request for clemency
