•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Indonesian immigration officials earlier this month deported 13 asylum seekers to their native Iran, where they could face torture or even execution. In doing so, the government failed to meet its moral obligations on the protection of refugees and possibly its international obligations as well.

The deportation of the Iranians was carried out in two waves on Feb. 8 and 9. The asylum seekers were part of a group of 46 people from Afghanistan and Iran who were seeking political asylum in Australia but were stranded on the coast of Tasikmalaya district in West Java after their boat capsized on Feb. 4. They were deported for having attempted to leave Indonesia without going through the proper channels, officials said.

The forcible return of the Iranians is problematic because they allegedly fled their country for political reasons and Iran doesn’t exactly have a great record when it comes to respecting dissidents’ human rights.

The UN Human Rights Committee last year published its Concluding Observations after a review of Iran’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran has been party since 1975. This document gives compelling evidence of the gravity of the human-rights situation in the country, including with regard to political dissidents.

The Committee is “deeply concerned about reports of the widespread use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in detention facilities, particularly of those accused of national security-related crimes or tried in Revolutionary Courts, some of which have resulted in the death of the detainee.”

The HRC also expressed its concerns about the poor conditions in detention facilities and frequent violations of detainees’ rights to fair trials.

If indeed the deported Iranians had fled their country for political reasons, then Indonesia is guilty of something called refoulement, which contravenes its international obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.

The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in the UN CAT, which Indonesia ratified in 1998. The principle is also widely considered to be part of customary international law and has three main implications: States cannot return asylum seekers or refugees to a place where their life or liberty would be at risk. States cannot prevent such people — even if they are being smuggled or trafficked — from seeking safety in a country if there is a chance of them being returned to a country where their life or liberty would be at risk. And states cannot deny people fleeing persecution access to asylum when they arrive at their border.

The lack of proper laws and procedures in Indonesia for dealing with a possible non-refoulement case makes it unlikely that asylum seekers’ rights can be guaranteed. The case of the Iranians shows that, with large numbers of refugees continuing to arrive on Indonesia’s shores, it is past time for a comprehensive legal framework be put in place to prevent similar steps by authorities in the future.

Currently, although the Directorate-General of Immigration has issued a directive stating that the principle of non-refoulement will be respected, no mechanism exists to make sure the provision is upheld.

The wide gap between Indonesia’s international legal commitments and their implementation in the field leaves asylum seekers and refugees at risk. National and international NGOs therefore continue to press Indonesia to fully incorporate the UN CAT provisions into national laws .

In order to be considered “at risk of being subjected to torture” in the sense of Article 3 of the UN CAT, there must not only be a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in the country to which the asylum seeker is expelled, but also specific grounds indicating that the asylum seeker is personally at risk of being subjected to torture.

Now, how could Indonesia find out if those Iranians it deported were facing a real risk of torture upon their return?

When determining the applicability of its obligations under Article 3 of the UN CAT, Indonesia should examine thoroughly the merits of each individual case. It can only do so if it ensures that adequate judicial mechanisms for the review of the decision are in place and legal assistance is available for each person subject to extradition. Indonesia should also ensure effective post-return monitoring arrangements.

However, the lack of such mechanisms in Indonesia makes it unlikely for asylum seekers to be heard. The Iranians were likely deported without a fair hearing, and we will know if the risk of torture is substantiated only when it is too late.

Indonesia should not have repatriated the Iranian asylum seekers and must halt any further plans to expel other refugees and asylum seekers before providing a credible review mechanism based on international laws and standards — all with the non-refoulement principle in mind. This mechanism must be provided to each and every asylum seeker facing expulsion, especially if the destination country is known to use torture.

Indonesia should also extend its commitment to promote human rights by providing refugees that end up on its shores full access to the UN refugee agency UNHCR or other international refugee organizations.

Furthermore, efforts are needed to make sure Indonesia ratifies all refugee-related treaties, especially the UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

The government is reportedly reluctant to ratify these agreements because it still sees the proper handling of refugees as a burden too big to bear.

But what about the cost to the country’s reputation when it fails to provide refugees the protection they are entitled to under international law?

Last December, scores perished when a boat carrying 250 men, women and children capsized in Indonesian waters. These people knew Indonesia would not provide them with adequate protection when they set sail for Australia.

To prevent further disaster, Indonesia should explicitly embrace the principle of non-refoulement in its national laws and provide an accountable mechanism to review all individual cases.

Aditya Muharam holds a master’s degree in global studies from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.