Law Faculty website
FACULTY OF LAW BLOGS / UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
DPRU Blog submissions
DPRU Q&As: Ajeng Larasati, Harm Reduction International
Author(s)
Ajeng Larasati
Human Rights Lead, Harm
Reduction International
Posted
28 July 2022
Time to read
5 Minutes
In this instalment of the DPRU's Q&A series with death penalty experts from around the world, Ajeng Larasati, Human Rights Lead at Harm
Reduction International, tells DPRU Research Of_cer Jocelyn Hutton about her work advocating for justice for drug offenders worldwide.
Can you tell us a little bit about your current work?
I lead the Human Rights and Justice Team at Harm Reduction International (HRI), where one of our main focuses is advocating against the use
of the death penalty for drug offences. We monitor global use of the death penalty for drug offences and use our _ndings to campaign for the
abolition of the death penalty for drug offences. We regularly brief UN member states, agencies and other relevant actors with updates and
policy briefs, and we liaise with NGOs working in countries that retain the death penalty for drug offences.
Can you talk about one of the most interesting /compelling cases you’ve ever dealt with?
To me, each and every death penalty case is interesting and compelling. But one case that I will always remember is that of Humphrey
Jefferson Ejike, or, as we called him, Jeff. Jeff was a Nigerian citizen who owned a restaurant in Jakarta, Indonesia and was framed for drug
traf_cking by a business rival. The police raided his restaurant and found 1.7kg of heroin that had likely been planted there. Jeff was sentenced
to death in 2003.
There were many allegations of racial discrimination in Jeff’s case. The District Court even stated that “black people from Nigeria often become
a police target for surveillance due to their suspected involvement in drug dealing”. Jeff was reportedly tortured during detention and told he
could be released if he would name another ‘African’ man instead. There is also evidence that the man who framed Jeff later admitted to this
on his deathbed, and yet none of these facts were taken into consideration.
Jeff was my _rst death row client when I worked at Lembaga
Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat (LBHM), an Indonesian legal aid
organisation. His case was referred to us quite late in the process
and so we were left with limited further legal avenues to help
him. I met him in prison a few times before he was executed. He
sent us a few warming letters encouraging us to keep up the
good work and to not lose hope. Jeff was executed on 29 July
2016 – along with three other people, two of whom were also
Nigerian – while his case was in the process of a clemency
application, which should legally stay the process. Sadly, I was
out of the country and I didn’t have a chance to say goodbye.
The Indonesian Ombudsman has now admitted that Jeff’s
execution should not have taken place on a number of
maladministration grounds.
Do you think the death penalty should ever apply in a
drugs case?
Firstly, as a _rm supporter of the abolition of the death penalty, I
think the death penalty should never be applied in any case as it
is a violation of the right to life. However, even in countries that
have not abolished the death penalty, its application is meant to
be limited to the most serious crimes,[i] and drug offences do
not meet this threshold.
Humphrey Jefferson Ejike, known as 'Jeff', a Nigerian citizen executed
in Indonesia in July 2016.
Furthermore, studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime, whether drug offences, or other offences. HRI’s Global Overview
2021 shows no reduction in the number of death sentences for drug offences. We have also found that it disproportionately affects the most
marginalised groups and that most of those sentenced to death for drug offences across the world are coerced, tricked or trapped into
smuggling drugs. Finally, execution is costly. In Indonesia, it costs the government around 200m IDR (13,400 USD) to execute one person. There
are many more effective uses for that money, which could be used to solve problems rather than exacerbating them.
Why do you think foreign nationals are at special risk of the death penalty in drug cases?
When I have assisted foreign nationals in Indonesian courts, I have seen the layers of vulnerability and discrimination that they experience from
the moment they are arrested. Foreign nationals often _nd themselves unable to communicate and explain their situation to the police and the
police almost never have a translator with them when they arrest someone. In many cases, foreigners do not know how to contact lawyers or
translators, so they are often at the mercy of the police. It often takes time for the relevant embassy to be informed and sadly, not every
embassy is able to provide help. Without translators and lawyers, it is almost impossible for the foreigner to defend themselves and give their
testimony during the investigation process or during court hearings. Foreign prisoners are also vulnerable to torture and extortion. In the
corrupt criminal justice system Western prisoners are treated like an ATM machine – where police can extort them for money – as they are
perceived as ‘rich people’. And foreigners who don’t have such resources are not able to buy their way out of their vulnerabilities. All foreign
nationals have to face these things without being able to communicate with their families back home, or any help from their support systems.
Many people on death row are held on Nusakambangan Island
in Central Java province. It is very dif_cult to visit anyone
imprisoned on that island, both in terms of authorisation and
logistics. This makes it even harder for family members or
consulate authorities to offer their support to prisoners. Those
that do make it will have to travel for hours, using multiple forms
of transport for a very short visitation. As in many other prisons
in Indonesia, the conditions inside Nusakambangan are
inhumane – basic services are limited, there is huge
overcrowding and the Indonesian Ombudsman found that the
food and health budgets came to only 1 USD and 2 USD per
person per day, respectively.
What is one of the biggest issues facing foreign nationals
accused of a death penalty crime?
The lack of appropriate language translators really impacts
foreign nationals. I don’t think _nding a translator who can
speak the language is enough. There is a responsibility to _nd a
translator who understands the context – and this is what is
usually missing. Complex legal terms need proper translation
and interpretation. Prisoners’ intentions and reactions need to
be properly construed. Misinterpretation often takes place –
even for basic terms. For example, one of our clients when
sentenced to death was asked to respond by the court. She said
she felt speechless and numb as she was stunned by the
injustice of her situation. The court translator conveyed this as
unfeeling and therefore she was portrayed as a cold, heartless
criminal in media coverage of the case.
What do you think is the most effective way of lobbying
against the death penalty?
Nusakambangan Island, where many death row prisoners are held.
I wish I knew the right answer to this question. Pragmatically, think what matters most are the message and the messenger. The message will
need to hit something that policymakers care about, even if it is not what we might think is the main point. Similarly, sometimes the most
effective messenger is not always the people with expertise. It could be local or religious leaders, artists/celebrities, or people with power and
resources.
Finally, you just have to keep trying. Lobbying against the death penalty, as with any other human rights advocacy, is a marathon. You need
constant stamina, human and _nancial resources, and patience to see it through.
Ajeng Larasati is a human rights and public health specialist from
Indonesia. She works at Harm Reduction International (HRI). HRI
aim to reduce the negative health, social and legal impacts
associated with drug use and policy and advocate for those
sentenced to death for drug offences. Ajeng also coordinates the
Lawyering on the Margins Network and sits on the boards of the
HIV Justice Network, the Indonesian legal aid
organisation Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat (LBHM) and
the Indonesian sex workers' network Organisasi Perubahan Sosial
Indonesia (OPSI).
[i] Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that: “In countries which have not abolished the death
penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes …”. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that ‘most
serious crimes’ should be interpreted restrictively to mean only those crimes resulting directly and intentionally in death, excluding drug
offences. See e.g. UN Human Rights Committee, ‘General comment No. 36: Article 6: Right to life’ (3 September 2019) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36,
para 35.
Share
@OxfordLawFac
On Youtube
Our blogs are written by individual contributors and so
consist of individual opinions and viewpoints which are
not necessarily the views of either the Faculty of Law or
of the University of Oxford.
Privacy Policy
Contact
Accessibility Statement
Cookie Statement
Contact us
The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford,
St Cross Building,
St Cross Road, Oxford OX1 3UL
Enquiries: See contact emails
Contact Us
Data Protection
University of Oxford
Non-Oxford login
Oxford Login