COVID-19: Does Indonesia Already Comply with Human Rights?

Introduction

Until this article are written (28/3/2020), there are 1.155 cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in Indonesia with number of death tolls are still rising.[1] Given this situation, Indonesian government led by President Joko Widodo itself has made some negligence while mitigating this pandemic. For example, the government are encouraging people to not worry too much and to travel Indonesia knowing the fact that there is outbreak in Wuhan, China given our close geographical distance with the epicentre of outbreak.[2] Considering the government acts prior and during this pandemic, some of their measures got us raising our eyebrows and questioned their credibility to handle the issues. In this situation, human rights shall be taken into account to assess government treatment towards the outbreak given the nature of the human rights law which could be applied universally and unconditionally in any situations.[3] Does Indonesia already comply with human rights? (To be noted: this article only preliminary stage of assessment, the full review will be out after the outbreak over).

Two Violations

There are two major international instrument that help us as guidelines to write this research, namely International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and also International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) since Indonesia is State Party to both of them. As we look into both legal framework, we conclude that there are two violations where Indonesia does not comply with human rights that is to say violations towards the rights to life and rights to health.

First Violations: Rights to Life

Quoting from Article 6(1) of ICCPR[4], “every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”This provision entails the duty to protect life as legal obligation that has to be fulfilled by Indonesia as State Party.[5] The aim of this obligations is to adopt any appropriate measures in order to protect life from all reasonable foreseeable threats.[6] In order to be fulfilled, State Party are required to take appropriate measures to address general conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats or prevent individual enjoying the rights to life, such as the prevalence of life-threatening diseases,[7] in this case COVID-19. Given the conditions that already occured, Indonesia has failed to fulfil the rights to life due to lack of due diligence to prevent COVID-19 as foreseeable threats and life-threatening situations which resulted loss of life.

Second Violations: Rights to Health

Quoting from Article 12(1) of ICESCR[8], “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The rights to health, like all human rights, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, protectand fulfil.[9] Obligation to respect requires States to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to health. Furthermore, the obligation to protect requires States to take measures that prevent private sectors from realizing the rights to health. In addition, the obligation to fulfil requires States to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, promotional and other measures towards the full realization of the right to health.[10] However, as we look into the practice in this COVID-19 situations, it seems that the government failed to respect and fulfil the rights to health. It is evident in several news,[11] that the government has conducted several actions which contravene with the realization of rights to health such as the deliberate misrepresentation of information vital to health protection or treatment and failed to monitor the threats.[12] Given the situation in hospitals and remote places, such as Papua[13] reflects that government is failed to give equitable distribution of health facilities.[14]

Conclusion: What should the government do?

Despite the facts that the government failed to prevent COVID-19 as foreseeable threats which eventually resulted to loss of life and inequitable number of health facilities, we shall focused on to overcome this crisis. According to several human rights instrument, there are some suggestions that could be followed. we shall develop contingency plans and disaster management plans designed to increase preparedness[15] and also undertake actions that could create maintenance and restoration the health of the population, such as fostering recognition of factors favouring positive health results.[16] Considering the practice of other States, we suggest that Indonesia shall impose strict lockdown measure at this crucial moment. The implementation of this measures are reflected in China and Italy since both States imposing different lockdown measures. China imposing strict lockdown after 30 deaths and Italy only imposing gradually lockdown after 800 deaths. The results is quite surprising, China reported zero cases after two months of lockdown and Italy which enacting different measures suffered with significant amount of deaths.[17] It could be concluded, that the timing to impose lockdown is crucial and we suggest that government should done it as soon as possible considering the number of death tolls is still notably low to moderate. Moreover, India also followed China measures to enacting strict lockdown measures due to lack of health equipment and the culture Indian people are not very obedient with normative cautions.[18] Therefore, it seems reasonable to enact strict lockdown measures in Indonesia due to the similarity of conditions, demography and culture with India.

[1]https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/28/07461641/update-27-maret-kasus-positif-covid-19-1046-masyarakat-tak-patuh-jaga-jarak

[2]https://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/4166420/dampak-virus-corona-pemerintah-sasar-turis-australia-dan-as

[3] Sieghart, Paul. The International Law of Human Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1983). hal. 75; Report on Human Rights in Armed Conflict.UN Doc. A/8052. (1970) 13. para. 25

[4] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (1966). Art. 6(1)

[5] UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). General comment no. 36, Article 6 (Right to Life). 3 September 2019. CCPR/C/GC/35. para. 18

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid. para. 26; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). Concluding observations adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 105th session, 9-27 July 2012 (Kenya). CCPR/C/KEN/CO/3

[8] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 999 UNTS 3 (1966). Art. 12(1)

[9] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant). 11 August 2000. E/C.12/2000/4. para. 33

[10] Ibid.

[11]https://www.liputan6.com/news/read/4179878/menkes-ungkap-alasan-orang-indonesia-kebal-virus-corona

[12] supra note 9. para 50

[13]https://tirto.id/betapa-tidak-siap-papua-hadapi-corona-covid-19-eH2S; https://www.wartaekonomi.co.id/read273546/tak-terdeteksi-di-indonesia-bnpb-singgung-jamu-berharap-bisa-jadi-obat-coronah ttps://news.okezone.com/read/2020/03/23/340/2187575/apd-minim-pasien-corona-di-jayapura-akan-dirawat-melalui-video-call;

https://regional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/18/14390571/papua-baru-miliki-30-dari-5000-alat-pelindung-diri-yang-dibutuhkan-tim-medis;

https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4956109/mahfud-md-indonesia-masih-perlu-jutaan-apd-untuk-tangani-corona

[14] supra note 9. para 50

[15] supra note 5. para. 26

[16] supra note 9. para. 37

[17]https://theprint.in/india/why-india-has-opted-for-a-china-style-lockdown-and-not-like-the-one-in-italy/388137/

[18]https://www.vox.com/2020/3/24/21190868/coronavirus-india-modi-lockdown-kashmir