Komnas HAM, Indonesia, 3rd UPR I. Mandate and UPR Process 1. The INHRC1 provides this submission to the UNHRC with regard to Indonesia’s Cycle of Universal Periodic Review. Komnas HAM is an independent state institution established in 1993 under Presidential Decree No. 50 of 1993 concerning Human Rights (replaced by Law No. 39 Year 1999). In accordance with the mandate of Law No. 39 Year 1999 on Human Rights, Komnas HAM has the function of monitoring, mediation, public awareness, and research on human rights, including implementation of international human rights norms in Indonesia. (Annex 1) 3rd 2. This submission does not provide a complete assessment of Indonesia’s compliance with the outcome of the 2nd Cycle of UPR in 2012, but focuses on Komnas HAM recent and current areas of work. In addition, Komnas HAM had consultations with the Government and CSOs on 1st and 24th August 2016. However, this report covers some of the issues as recommended by the Committee in 2012 along with current issues. Komnas HAM conducted a series of consultations internally and with the Komnas Perempuan2 and the KPAI3 during the preparation of this report. II. Human Rights Issues Addressed in the 2009-2012 Review A. Human Rights Topics 1. Freedom of Expression4 3. The Government took positive steps with revision of the Law No. 11 of 2008 on ITE5 to guarantee the right to freedom expression and speech in digital media. 4. Clauses in this law are used to restrict freedom expression in digital media.6 Moreover, other forms of repression of expression and opinion occur in the form of prohibition of film screenings, public discussions7 and restrictions on freedom of expression in public places. 5. Recommendations: (1) Revision of the ITE Law in 2017. (2) Encourage the Police to take firm action against officials and community organizations who use or threaten violence to repress freedom. 2. Right to Life 8 6. From 2004-2015, sixteen (16) executions were conducted. 9 From 2015 until today, the Government has carried out three waves of executions.10 However, there are positive devolpments such as delaying the execution of Mary Jane Veloso and ten (10) people scheduled in Wave III. 7. Problems arose from the Government's decision to carry out executions in cases still in the process of judicial review,11 including a person suffering from mental illness. Additionally, the legal process undertaken in the cases of death sentences does not fulfill a sense of justice and legal protection, mainly related to the non-provision of the rights of death row inmates, such as the right to legal aid and language interpreters, the duration of the trial to execution 1