Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 64621 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 07JAKARTA510, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REFORM PROCESS TAKES A NEW DIRECTION

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
07JAKARTA510 2007-02-26 05:18 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Jakarta
VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHJA #0510/01 0570518
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 260518Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3433
INFO RUEAWJB/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
UNCLAS JAKARTA 000510 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL BOULDIN 
DOJ FOR CRIM AAG BRUCE SWARTZ 
DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KCRM KJUS SNAR PHUM ID
SUBJECT: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REFORM PROCESS TAKES A NEW DIRECTION 
 
REF: A) 2006 JAKARTA 13507 
 
      B) JAKARTA 157 
 
1.  (SBU) SUMMARY  On February 21, Minister of Law and Human Rights 
Hamid Awaludin met with the DOJ/OPDAT Resident Legal Advisor (RLA) 
to discuss a more fundamental approach to revising the criminal 
procedure code.  Awaludin expressed his belief that the current 
drafting efforts have been too conservative in its approach. 
Instead of revising the existing code, he asserted that the goal 
should be to establish a new code based on broadly agreed-upon 
general principles.  Separately, the RLA met with Attorney General 
Saleh and his staff to update them on the progress of the criminal 
procedure reform.  Both meetings reflect a new high-level engagement 
on the reform process.  End Summary. 
 
MINISTER AWALUDIN TAKES CONTROL OF THE PROCESS 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
2.  (SBU)  Over the course of the past seven years, an Indonesian 
working group that includes representatives from the Ministry of Law 
and Human Rights, the Attorney General's Office, and the Supreme 
Court has met intermittently to revise the existing 1981 Code of 
Civil Procedure.  During that period the group proposed various 
revisions to the code, most notably establishing a new institution 
of supervising judges who would conduct judicial review of certain 
investigatory steps.  Despite the length of time that the draft code 
has been under development, however, the working group's draft did 
not significantly depart from the 1981 Code, which itself contains 
many of the shortcomings inherited from the Dutch colonial period. 
 
3.  (SBU)  In an effort to jumpstart the process, the RLA conducted 
two drafting sessions with the working group in December 2006 and 
January 2007.  Both programs led to a number of significant changes 
to the draft code, but some of the fundamental issues, such as 
establishing prosecutorial and judicial control over the 
investigative stage, jettisoning the dossier system, reforming the 
rules of evidence, defining the role of the judge, and creating a 
truly adversarial trial remained unresolved. (Reftel A and B)  At 
the second session, Minister Awaludin emphasized that the working 
group should seize this opportunity to establish new legal paradigms 
that reflect the dramatic political and societal changes that have 
taken place in Indonesia since the 1981 Code was enacted. 
 
4.  (SBU)  On February 21, Minister Awaludin met with the RLA and 
two members of the working group to discuss the need to develop 
deeper changes to the code.  Minister Awaludin expressed his belief 
that the working group had been too conservative in its work and 
indicated a lack of confidence in its leadership.  Instead of 
revising the code, they should be writing a new one.  He also 
expressed his view that the different justice players -- the police, 
the Attorney General's Office, and judges -- were too focused on 
their individual institutional concerns.  He asked the RLA to 
prepare for him a list of the fundamental values that the new code 
should embody and what major changes were necessary to bring them 
about.  He then announced that he would give the working group a 
chance to consider these new ideas, but also bring a group of 
outside experts -- U.S., European, Malaysian, and domestic -- to 
reach agreement on the fundamentals.  Then he would reach out to the 
different justice institutions to explain the new framework. 
Finally, the actual language of the code would be worked out.  The 
Minister informed the RLA that he wanted the new code to be a 
"masterpiece." 
 
5.  (SBU)  Based on Minister Awaludin's request, the RLA submitted a 
list of key principles that the new code should reflect:  (1) a 
neutral judiciary; (2) protection of human rights; (3) checks and 
balances in the investigative process; (4) transparency at trial; 
(5) equality between the parties; (6) evaluation of all legally 
obtained evidence; (7) consensual resolution of cases; and (8) 
protection of the rights of victims.  The RLA proposal detailed what 
broad procedural rules must be in place to achieve each of these 
principles. 
 
ATTORNEY GENERAL SALEH ENGAGES 
------------------------------ 
 
6.  (SBU)  On February 15, Attorney General Saleh requested that the 
RLA give a presentation on the status of the criminal procedure 
code.  In addition to the Attorney General, approximately twenty of 
the AGO senior leadership attended the ninety minute meeting. 
Following the RLA's overview of the changes currently contained in 
the draft code, the Attorney General and his staff asked questions. 
The questions of his staff indicated that the AGO's two primary 
concerns were whether the supervising judge would impinge on their 
prosecutorial control and whether the new code would restore their 
control over the police during the investigative stage. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
7.  (SBU)  Over the past two months, the working group has been 
receptive to significant improvements to the code.  However, several 
of the proposals from the U.S. legal experts would have necessitated 
fundamental changes to the existing system, something the working 
group was not yet ready to undertake.  Minister Awaludin's new 
direction in the drafting process opens the door to more fundamental 
revisions to the code that could allow the Indonesian criminal 
justice system to move from a formalistic inquisitorial system to a 
more adversarial, evidence-based system.  The meeting at the AGO 
showed an encouraging recognition by the Attorney General of the 
importance of this process, but questions from many of his staff 
confirmed Minister Awaludin's concerns that justice players were 
preoccupied with their institutional interests rather than focused 
on the broader issues.  End Comment. 
 
HEFFERN