top of page

Human Rights Barometer for G20 Members - Part 3



3.4.6  France's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.6.1  Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In France, freedom of assembly and association are protected under both domestic law and international agreements.

 

While freedom of assembly is generally respected, there have been notable instances where state responses to protests have raised concerns. France has a long tradition of public demonstrations, often on issues related to labour rights, social justice, and political reform. However, in recent years, large-scale protests, such as the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement, have seen heavy-handed responses from law enforcement. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticised the use of excessive force, such as tear gas and rubber bullets, by French police during protests.

 

Additionally, France’s legal framework allows the government to impose certain restrictions on assemblies in the interest of public safety or national security. For example, during periods of heightened security threats, such as after the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the French government invoked a state of emergency that restricted certain civil liberties, including the right to assemble.

 

Freedom of association is also guaranteed in France, allowing citizens to form unions, political parties, and civil society organisations freely. However, in recent years, some civil society organisations, particularly those working on issues related to immigration and human rights, have reported increased scrutiny and pressure from the government.

 

In summary, while France provides strong legal protections for freedom of assembly and association, recent protests and government responses have highlighted tensions between maintaining public order and fully respecting these rights.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist, but with some restrictions (e.g., permits required for large gatherings). Civil society organisations operate mostly freely, though there may be occasional government scrutiny.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.2  Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In France, the right to a fair trial and due process is protected, but the judicial system faces challenges that affect the timely and equal administration of justice. While legal frameworks ensure the presumption of innocence, access to a defence, and impartial courts, delays in legal proceedings and pretrial detention are ongoing concerns.

 

Particularly for marginalised communities, access to justice can be hindered by long judicial processes and the uneven availability of legal assistance. France's high-profile counterterrorism laws have also raised concerns about the potential erosion of due process, with critics pointing to cases of prolonged detentions without formal charges under emergency laws.

 

Despite these challenges, France's judiciary is largely independent and functions well in most cases, but reforms have been called for to improve efficiency and better safeguard procedural rights.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Judicial independence is largely upheld, but there may be occasional political influence in sensitive cases. Legal representation is accessible, though certain marginalised groups may face hurdles.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.3  Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

France is a well-established democracy with a political system based on the Fifth Republic, which features a strong executive and regular, free elections at local, regional, and national levels. Citizens participate actively in politics through voting, and elections are generally regarded as free and fair, overseen by independent electoral authorities.

 

Political participation in France is robust, with multiple political parties representing a wide range of ideologies. However, recent years have seen increasing voter apathy, particularly among younger citizens, and growing disenchantment with traditional political parties. This has contributed to the rise of populist movements, including the far-right National Rally (formerly Front National) and the emergence of outsider political figures like President Emmanuel Macron.

 

While the democratic system functions effectively, concerns remain about political polarisation, the underrepresentation of marginalised groups, and the impact of economic inequality on political engagement. Civil society organisations continue to play an active role in shaping public discourse and holding the government accountable.

 

Score: 5/5 – “The country guarantees free and fair elections, and all individuals have the right to participate in government. Political opposition is allowed and respected, and there is a transparent process for democratic governance.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.4  Freedom from Discrimination

 

In France, freedom from discrimination is protected by both constitutional provisions and specific anti-discrimination laws, including the Loi sur la discrimination (Law on Discrimination). These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other characteristics. France is also a signatory to various international human rights treaties that reinforce these protections.

 

Despite these legal frameworks, discrimination remains a concern, particularly against minority groups such as immigrants, Muslims, Roma communities, and people of African descent. There have been documented cases of racial profiling by law enforcement, which disproportionately affects young men from these communities. Additionally, Islamophobia has been a growing issue, with the controversial bans on religious symbols, such as headscarves in public schools, drawing criticism from human rights groups for disproportionately targeting Muslim women.

 

Gender inequality is another persistent issue in France, despite progress in women’s rights. The gender wage gap, underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, and ongoing concerns about gender-based violence continue to be areas where further action is needed.

 

In summary, while France has comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, societal challenges remain, particularly in addressing racial and religious discrimination, as well as gender inequality.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups, though the state does take some action to address these issues.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.5  Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In France, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is protected under domestic law and international commitments. The Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights prohibit torture and degrading treatment, and France is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Despite these legal protections, concerns remain about the treatment of detainees, particularly in police custody and prisons.

 

Reports from human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have highlighted cases of police brutality, particularly during protests and in low-income neighbourhoods. Instances of excessive force used by law enforcement, including the mistreatment of protestors and the use of dangerous crowd control tactics, have been documented. These incidents have raised concerns about the state's commitment to upholding the prohibition of inhuman treatment.

In the prison system, overcrowding and poor conditions are longstanding issues, contributing to concerns about the humane treatment of inmates. Human rights groups have criticised the government for inadequate living conditions, lack of access to healthcare, and occasional instances of violence within prisons.

 

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) highlighted overcrowded prisons and a lack of psychiatric beds, which exacerbate the situation. Additionally, the UN Torture Rapporteur requested that France address its obligations, particularly around security operations.

 

While France has a strong legal framework against torture, challenges in enforcement, particularly within law enforcement and the prison system, persist and have drawn international criticism.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist and are generally enforced, though there may be occasional reports of abuse by law enforcement. Violators are usually held accountable.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.6 Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In France, human rights defenders are generally able to operate within a robust legal framework that protects freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. However, human rights defenders, particularly those advocating for minority rights, migrants, and environmental protection, face growing challenges. Human rights organisations such as Front Line Defenders and Amnesty International have raised concerns about the harassment and intimidation of activists, especially those involved in protests against state policies and corporate activities.

 

Environmental activists, for instance, have been increasingly targeted during protests against infrastructure projects, where reports of excessive police force and legal harassment have been noted. Similarly, human rights defenders advocating for migrants’ rights have faced difficulties, including legal threats and police monitoring, particularly when assisting undocumented migrants.

 

France has a National Human Rights Commission and legal mechanisms designed to support the protection of human rights defenders. However, gaps in implementation remain, especially in cases where the defenders’ activities conflict with state interests, such as protests or migrant advocacy.

 

Despite these challenges, civil society in France remains active, and human rights defenders continue to play a crucial role in advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and the rights of marginalised groups.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Human rights defenders generally operate freely, but there may be occasional instances of harassment or government pressure. Legal protections exist, though they may not always be fully enforced.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.7   Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression in France is protected under Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and is reinforced by the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. These legal frameworks guarantee the right to freely express opinions, ideas, and information. France is also home to a vibrant media landscape and active civil society, contributing to robust freedom of speech protections.

 

However, there have been increasing concerns about restrictions on this freedom, particularly in the context of national security, terrorism, and hate speech laws. In recent years, laws aimed at countering terrorism and hate speech have led to heightened surveillance and the potential restriction of free expression. The Global Security Law, passed in 2021, sparked significant controversy, as it was seen as limiting the ability of journalists and citizens to document police activities, leading to protests and criticism from both national and international human rights groups.

 

Additionally, while France has strong hate speech laws, there is a delicate balance between combating discrimination and protecting free speech. Laws criminalising hate speech, Holocaust denial, and incitement to violence are in place, but critics argue that these laws can sometimes be used to suppress legitimate expressions of dissent, particularly on sensitive issues like religion or national identity.

 

The country also faces challenges concerning online censorship and misinformation, as social media platforms are increasingly being held accountable for content shared on their platforms under European and domestic laws. This has raised debates about the balance between maintaining free expression and controlling harmful or false information.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of Expression is generally protected, though some restrictions apply, particularly on sensitive topics (e.g., national security). The press operates freely, but there may be occasional government pressure.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Freedom of religion or belief in France is protected under the French Constitution and is further reinforced by international agreements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 1 of the Constitution guarantees the principle of laïcité (secularism), which ensures the separation of religion and state, and protects the freedom of individuals to practice their religion or not.

 

While the state maintains neutrality in religious matters, France has faced challenges in balancing secularism with religious expression, particularly in relation to Islamic practices. Laws such as the 2004 ban on wearing religious symbols, including the Islamic headscarf, in public schools and the 2010 ban on face coverings in public spaces have drawn criticism from human rights organisations. Critics argue that these laws disproportionately affect Muslim women and infringe on their right to religious freedom.

 

Religious minorities, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians, generally practice their faith freely in France, though incidents of discrimination and hate crimes based on religion persist. Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks, in particular, have been noted by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, despite efforts by the government to combat hate crimes.

 

In summary, while France's legal framework strongly protects freedom of religion or belief, tensions around the application of secularism and the treatment of religious minorities continue to raise concerns.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections exist but are inconsistently enforced. Religious minorities may face discrimination, and the state may impose limitations on religious practices.”

 

References:

 


3.4.6.9   Right to Privacy

 

France has robust privacy laws, particularly through the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, concerns remain about state surveillance.

 

In France, the right to privacy is protected under domestic law and international agreements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Domestically, the Data Protection Act (1978) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies across the European Union, provide robust protections for personal data, ensuring that individuals have control over how their data is collected, used, and stored.

 

Despite these strong legal frameworks, concerns about state surveillance and the collection of personal data have grown in recent years. The passage of anti-terrorism laws following the 2015 Paris attacks expanded the government’s surveillance powers, allowing law enforcement to monitor communications, search homes without a warrant, and impose house arrests without judicial oversight. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised concerns about these measures, arguing that they infringe on the right to privacy and could be abused to suppress dissent.

 

The National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL), France's data protection authority, plays an important role in ensuring compliance with privacy laws, particularly regarding the handling of personal data by companies and public authorities. In recent years, CNIL has imposed significant fines on major tech companies for violations of data protection laws.

 

In summary, while France has comprehensive legal protections for privacy, concerns remain regarding the balance between national security measures and individual privacy rights, particularly in the context of increased state surveillance.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections for privacy exist, but some government surveillance or data collection occurs, particularly in national security matters. Personal data protections are mostly effective.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

In France, the right to life and security of person is constitutionally protected, and the country is a signatory to various international human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These frameworks safeguard the right to life, security, and the protection of individuals from arbitrary violence or harm.

 

Despite these legal protections, France faces significant challenges, particularly related to policing and security. Instances of police violence, especially during protests and in low-income neighbourhoods, have raised concerns. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented cases where the use of force by law enforcement has led to deaths or serious injuries. The 2016 protests against labour reforms and the more recent Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement saw widespread allegations of police brutality, prompting calls for greater accountability and reform in policing practices.

 

In addition to law enforcement concerns, the French government has implemented strict anti-terrorism measures in recent years, which, while aimed at protecting public safety, have raised human rights concerns. The state of emergency declared after the 2015 Paris attacks allowed authorities to impose measures that critics argue infringed on civil liberties, including increased surveillance and restrictions on movement.

 

Gender-based violence also remains a serious issue in France. The country has made efforts to combat violence against women, but high rates of domestic violence, including femicide, have led to ongoing debates about the effectiveness of these measures.

 

In summary, while France’s legal framework strongly supports the right to life and personal security, concerns about police violence, state surveillance, and gender-based violence highlight the need for continued reforms and stronger protections for vulnerable populations.

 

Score: 3/5 – "The right to life is legally recognised, but certain populations face systemic violence or abuse (e.g., due to race, gender, or sexual orientation). Law enforcement often operates with impunity."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.6.11   Overall score for France – 3.8/5

 

France's overall score reflects a country with strong legal protections for human rights, particularly in areas such as political participation, fair trials, and Freedom of Expression. However, issues such as police violence during protests, racial discrimination, and limitations on religious freedom highlight challenges in enforcement, particularly for marginalised groups like Muslims and migrants. While France upholds a robust legal framework for civil liberties, gaps remain in ensuring equal treatment and protection for all citizens, especially in relation to law enforcement accountability and anti-discrimination efforts.


 

3.4.7   Germany's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.7.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Citizens have the right to organise and participate in demonstrations and protests without prior notification, though this right can be subject to restrictions in cases where public safety or order is at risk. Assemblies under the open sky may be subject to conditions or bans, especially if they pose a threat to public security.

 

Germany is known for its robust protections for peaceful assembly, and protests are a common form of political and social expression. However, there are limits to these freedoms, particularly when it comes to extremist groups. For instance, associations that seek to undermine democratic principles, such as those with neo-Nazi or other extremist ideologies, can be banned under Article 9 of the Grundgesetz. The government has taken steps to restrict the activities of groups it deems a threat to public safety, such as those promoting hate speech or violence.

 

In practice, most public demonstrations in Germany occur peacefully, though there have been occasional clashes with law enforcement, particularly during protests related to far-right or far-left movements. The Federal Constitutional Court ensures that restrictions on assembly and association adhere to the principle of proportionality, balancing individual freedoms with the need for public security.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist, but with some restrictions (e.g., permits required for large gatherings). Civil society organisations operate mostly freely, though there may be occasional government scrutiny.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

German courts operate with a high degree of independence, free from government or political interference. Judges are appointed based on merit and are subject to strict legal guidelines, ensuring their impartiality. The Federal Constitutional Court serves as a guardian of the constitution, upholding the rule of law and ensuring that fair trial principles are adhered to in all cases.

 

The German legal system guarantees several key elements of due process, including the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, and the right to appeal decisions. The Criminal Procedure Code (Strafprozessordnung) outlines the rights of defendants, including the right to be informed of charges, to present evidence, and to confront witnesses.

 

Germany provides legal aid to individuals who cannot afford legal representation, ensuring that financial limitations do not hinder access to justice. This is particularly important in maintaining the fairness of the judicial process for economically disadvantaged groups.

 

While Germany generally adheres to high standards of fairness in legal proceedings, there have been occasional criticisms, particularly regarding the length of time it can take to resolve cases. Overcrowded courts and a backlog of cases sometimes result in delays, which can prolong pretrial detention in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, the right to a prompt and fair trial remains a cornerstone of the German justice system, with courts working to mitigate these challenges.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Judicial independence is largely upheld, but there may be occasional political influence in sensitive cases. Legal representation is accessible, though certain marginalised groups may face hurdles.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Germany holds regular, free, and fair elections at both federal and state levels. The Bundestag, the federal parliament, is elected every four years through a mixed-member proportional representation system. Citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote, and voter turnout is typically high, reflecting strong political engagement. The political landscape is dominated by several major parties, including the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), and Alliance 90/The Greens, ensuring a competitive and pluralistic political environment.

 

Civil society in Germany is strong, with a vibrant network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), advocacy groups, and trade unions actively participating in political discourse. Citizens can engage in political life through protests, petitions, and referenda at the state level, providing multiple avenues for influencing government decisions.

 

Although Germany has a robust democratic framework, some challenges remain. Political participation by certain minority groups, such as immigrants and people with lower socio-economic status, is often lower than the national average. There are also growing concerns about the rise of far-right political movements, which have gained representation in local and national parliaments, challenging the country's democratic values.

 

Score: 5/5 – “The country guarantees free and fair elections, and all individuals have the right to participate in government. Political opposition is allowed and respected, and there is a transparent process for democratic governance.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

Freedom from discrimination is a core principle protected under Article 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, disability, religion, or political opinion. Germany has also implemented several legal frameworks, including the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), to combat discrimination and ensure equal treatment in areas like employment, education, and access to services.

 

The AGG, passed in 2006, is a key piece of anti-discrimination legislation in Germany. It prohibits discrimination in various fields, including employment, housing, and access to goods and services, on the basis of race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability, age, or sexual orientation. The AGG provides individuals with legal recourse if they experience discrimination, including the right to file complaints or seek compensation.

 

Despite strong legal protections, certain minority groups in Germany still face discrimination. Immigrants, particularly those of Turkish or Arab descent, as well as asylum seekers and refugees, are often subject to xenophobia and unequal treatment in employment and housing.

 

Germany has also faced criticism for its treatment of the Roma and Sinti communities, who continue to face significant barriers to accessing housing, employment, and education. Although the government has taken steps to address these issues, including public awareness campaigns and social integration programmes, discrimination against these groups remains a challenge.

 

While Germany has made significant progress in gender equality, including closing the gender pay gap and promoting women in leadership positions, challenges remain. Women, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds, continue to face unequal treatment in the workplace. Furthermore, while Germany legalised same-sex marriage in 2017, LGBTQ+ individuals still report discrimination in both public and private life. Hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ people have also been on the rise, highlighting the ongoing challenges in ensuring full equality.

 

Overall, while Germany has a strong legal framework to combat discrimination, the practical application of these protections continues to face obstacles, particularly for minority and vulnerable groups.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections against discrimination exist but may be inconsistently enforced. Discrimination is not widespread, though certain marginalised groups may face barriers.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Germany is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and its domestic legal framework, particularly the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 1 of the Basic Law emphasises the inviolability of human dignity, providing a strong constitutional foundation against torture and mistreatment. Furthermore, Article 104 prohibits any physical or mental mistreatment of persons in detention.

 

The Criminal Code stipulates penalties for public officials who commit acts of torture or inhuman treatment, and German courts have taken action to prosecute such offences. Law enforcement agencies are generally held accountable, with oversight mechanisms such as the Federal Agency for the Prevention of Torture monitoring detention facilities and prisons to ensure compliance with anti-torture regulations.

 

Although Germany has comprehensive legal protections, there have been concerns regarding the treatment of asylum seekers and migrants, particularly in detention centres. Human rights organisations have reported occasional instances of excessive use of force by law enforcement, though these are generally investigated, and responsible individuals are held to account. Germany’s efforts to accommodate large numbers of refugees since 2015 have tested the system, leading to scrutiny of conditions in some reception centres, but no widespread patterns of abuse have been documented.

 

While cases of police brutality are rare, some instances of excessive force, particularly during protests, have raised concerns. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have highlighted isolated incidents where police officers used disproportionate force, though such cases are usually followed by investigations. Germany's judicial system provides a framework for holding law enforcement accountable when abuses occur.

 

In summary, while Germany has strong legal frameworks to prevent torture and inhuman treatment, continued vigilance and monitoring are necessary, particularly concerning vulnerable groups like asylum seekers and detainees. The country generally upholds its commitment to international human rights standards, with effective oversight mechanisms in place.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist and are generally enforced, though there may be occasional reports of abuse by law enforcement. Violators are usually held accountable.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Human rights defenders in Germany operate in a largely free and open environment, with the ability to advocate for human rights issues, including those related to migrants, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmental activism. They have access to legal recourse when their rights are violated, and civil society organisations play an active role in ensuring that human rights defenders are able to conduct their work without fear of reprisal, although threats and attacks are not unheard of.


Law enforcement agencies are generally responsive in investigating and prosecuting those who threaten or attack human rights defenders. Civil society organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, operate freely in the country, providing support to human rights defenders through advocacy, legal assistance, and public awareness campaigns. These organisations also play a critical role in holding the government accountable when failures occur in protecting human rights defenders.

 

Some environmental human rights defenders have reported increased intimidation tactics by law enforcement, such as use of force during protests, prosecution and exorbitant fines, preventative detention, and even raids on their homes. Such measures have raised concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the chilling effect on public protest, especially regarding climate change activism, which is seen as challenging the state’s economic policies related to coal mining and other industries.

 

In summary, while Germany offers a supportive environment for human rights defenders, challenges persist, particularly from far-right groups. Continued vigilance is needed to ensure that human rights defenders can carry out their important work without facing threats or intimidation.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Human rights defenders generally operate freely, but there may be occasional instances of harassment or government pressure. Legal protections exist, though they may not always be fully enforced.”

 

References:

 

 

 

3.4.7.7   Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression is a fundamental right in Germany, enshrined in Article 5 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). This article guarantees every individual the right to freely express and disseminate their opinions in speech, writing, and images, as well as the right to receive information. However, this right is not absolute, and certain limitations are placed on speech that incites hatred, denies the Holocaust, or glorifies Nazism.

 

Germany has a robust and free press, with journalists generally able to operate without government interference. The country ranks high on global press freedom indices, and its legal framework protects media organisations from undue restrictions. Public and private media co-exist, and the Federal Constitutional Court has played a crucial role in safeguarding the media’s role as a watchdog over the government.

 

Despite the strong protections, there are legal restrictions on certain types of expression. Germany has strict laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, and the use of Nazi symbols. The Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) criminalises incitement to hatred, which can result in significant penalties. Additionally, Section 130 of the code specifically prohibits speech that incites violence or hatred against minorities. These restrictions are rooted in Germany’s post-World War II commitment to preventing the spread of fascist ideologies and protecting public order.

 

In recent years, Germany has implemented stricter laws governing online content. The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), passed in 2017, requires social media companies to remove illegal content, including hate speech and defamation, within 24 hours or face substantial fines. While aimed at curbing online abuse, the law has raised concerns among free speech advocates about over-censorship and its impact on legitimate speech.

 

In conclusion, while Germany offers a strong legal framework for Freedom of Expression, the state maintains certain restrictions to prevent hate speech and protect public order, reflecting its unique historical context.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of Expression is generally protected, though some restrictions apply, particularly on sensitive topics (e.g., hate speech or national security). The press operates freely, but there may be occasional government pressure.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Article 4 of the Basic Law ensures that everyone has the right to freely practice their religion, and religious communities have the right to self-governance. Germany recognises several religious communities, including Christianity (Catholic and Protestant churches), Judaism, Islamism, Buddhism, and other faiths. These communities are allowed to operate schools, run charities, and engage in various social activities under their religious identities.

 

Germany maintains a formal separation between church and state. However, certain religious groups, such as the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church, enjoy a special status and are allowed to collect a "church tax" from their members through the state’s tax system. Religious instruction is also available in public schools, although it is optional, and students may choose to take ethics classes instead.

 

While religious freedom is broadly respected, certain minority groups, especially Muslims, face social discrimination and challenges in fully exercising their religious rights. For instance, the construction of mosques and the wearing of religious symbols, such as the hijab, have sparked public debates. There have been instances where local governments placed restrictions on mosque construction or public displays of religious dress, raising concerns about Islamophobia and the treatment of Muslim communities.

 

The German government has taken steps to address religious discrimination and support religious communities. Laws are in place to prosecute hate crimes based on religion, and efforts to promote interfaith dialogue are ongoing. However, some religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Jews, report that more needs to be done to ensure they are treated equally in public life.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of religion or belief is largely protected, though there may be some legal or social restrictions (e.g., certain public expressions of faith). Minority religious communities may face occasional challenges.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.9   Right to Privacy

 

The right to privacy in Germany is strongly protected under Article 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which guarantees personal rights, including the protection of personal data. In addition to the constitution, Germany is also subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which sets out stringent standards for the processing of personal data across the European Union.

 

While Germany generally upholds strong privacy protections, concerns have been raised about state surveillance, particularly under the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), which has been accused of overreach in its monitoring activities. In 2020, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court ruled that parts of the BND law were unconstitutional, stating that surveillance of foreign nationals outside Germany violated fundamental privacy rights. This ruling has since prompted reforms to limit the scope of surveillance by state authorities.

 

Despite strong protections, Germany faces challenges in balancing security concerns with privacy rights. Anti-terrorism measures, such as the retention of telecommunications data under the Data Retention Act, have sparked debates about whether such measures violate individual privacy rights. The act has been the subject of legal challenges, with critics arguing that it infringes on citizens' rights to privacy.

 

In conclusion, Germany has established a solid legal framework to protect privacy, but concerns about state surveillance and the balance between privacy and security continue to be debated.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections for privacy exist, but some government surveillance or data collection occurs, particularly in national security matters. Personal data protections are mostly effective.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

In Germany, the right to life and security of person is enshrined in Article 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which guarantees the right to life and physical integrity. The state is obligated to protect these rights through its legal system and public security measures. Germany adheres to strict human rights protections, and its legal framework aligns with international human rights treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

While the German police are generally effective and held to high professional standards, there have been occasional concerns about police conduct, particularly regarding excessive use of force. This has been highlighted in recent debates about police tactics during protests and public demonstrations. Nonetheless, Germany has strong mechanisms for holding law enforcement accountable, with independent oversight bodies that investigate allegations of misconduct.

 

In recent years, Germany has faced security challenges related to international terrorism and domestic extremism. The government has introduced a range of counterterrorism measures to protect public safety, including increased surveillance, tighter border controls, and expanded law enforcement capabilities. However, these measures have sparked debates about the balance between security and individual rights. Germany remains committed to upholding human rights even as it addresses security concerns.

 

Germany continues to face challenges in addressing gender-based violence and domestic abuse. Although legal protections are in place, including laws against domestic violence and support services for victims, gender-based violence remains a serious issue. Reports of domestic violence surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting the government to implement additional support measures for victims.

 

Despite these challenges, Germany maintains a strong commitment to protecting life and personal security, with a legal framework that aligns with its obligations under both domestic law and international human rights standards.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist, and violence is generally low, though certain groups (e.g., minorities or marginalised communities) may face occasional threats. Law enforcement generally follows legal protocols but may overstep in some cases.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.7.11   Overall Score for Germany: 4.1/5

 

Germany shows a strong commitment to human rights, with robust legal frameworks that protect freedoms such as expression, assembly, and privacy. While the country generally upholds these rights, challenges remain, particularly in addressing rising far-right extremism, incidents of police overreach during protests, and ongoing issues related to gender-based violence. Despite these concerns, Germany's well-functioning judiciary, accountable law enforcement, and active civil society contribute to its high human rights standards.

  


3.4.8   India's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.8.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Citizens have the right to gather and protest peacefully, but this is often subject to prior permission from authorities, particularly in urban areas. The requirement to obtain permission, often in the form of a permit, has sometimes been criticised for leading to the suppression of protests, particularly those that challenge the government. Over the years, there have been notable instances where peaceful assemblies have been met with police force, particularly during politically sensitive events, such as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the farmers' protests of 2020–2021.

 

India’s constitution also guarantees the right to form associations and unions, with trade unions being a particularly prominent example. However, restrictions can be imposed on groups considered a threat to public order or national security.

 

In practice, both freedoms have faced challenges. Protests are sometimes met with excessive police force or detentions, and there are concerns about laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) being used to suppress dissent and limit freedom of association, particularly for groups advocating for minority or marginalised communities. While freedom of assembly is generally respected, large-scale protests, particularly those critical of government policies, often face significant resistance from state authorities.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections are inconsistent or weak. Protests are often subject to heavy policing or restrictions. Civil society groups face bureaucratic hurdles or occasional harassment.”

 

References:

 

 

 

3.4.8.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

The right to a fair trial and due process in India is constitutionally protected in India, to ensure equality before the law, protection from arbitrary arrest, the right to legal representation, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. India’s legal framework aims to uphold judicial independence and safeguard the rights of accused individuals.

 

However, despite these constitutional protections, the Indian legal system faces significant challenges. Delays in judicial proceedings and overcrowded courts result in prolonged pretrial detentions, with many individuals waiting years for their cases to be heard. The application of laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition laws has raised concerns about the suppression of dissent and the extended detention of political activists without trial, undermining the principles of a speedy and fair trial. While legal aid is available through government programmes, many economically disadvantaged and marginalised individuals face barriers in accessing competent legal representation.

In practice, India struggles to fully realise the right to a fair trial due to these systemic issues, despite the presence of strong legal safeguards in the constitution and judicial system.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Judicial independence is inconsistent. Some cases, especially political ones, may experience government interference. Arbitrary detention or extended pretrial detention is reported but not widespread.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Political participation and democratic governance in India are robust, with the country being the largest democracy in the world. The Constitution of India ensures that citizens have the right to vote in regular, free, and fair elections, with the Election Commission of India overseeing the process. India holds national, state, and local elections that allow for broad public participation.

 

Political power is distributed across multiple levels of government, and political parties, including both national and regional entities, play a vital role in shaping India's diverse political landscape. Major political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) dominate national politics, while various regional parties hold significant influence at the state level.

 

Challenges to democratic governance include rising concerns about electoral integrity, political corruption, and the increasing influence of money and media on elections. Additionally, the curbing of dissent and the use of laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to suppress political opposition have raised concerns about the erosion of democratic norms. Despite these issues, India remains a functioning democracy with active political participation and a well-established electoral process.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Elections are generally free and fair, though there may be some political interference. Political opposition is allowed but faces certain challenges or limitations.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

Freedom from discrimination in India is guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 17 further abolishes untouchability, which historically affected lower-caste communities, particularly Dalits. Despite these legal protections, discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, and ethnicity remains prevalent in many parts of society.

 

While outlawed, caste-based discrimination continues to affect social and economic opportunities, particularly for Dalits and other historically marginalised groups. Despite affirmative action policies, such as reservations in education and government jobs, caste violence and social exclusion are still reported, especially in rural areas.

 

India's diverse religious landscape includes Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. Tensions between religious communities occasionally result in violence, with Muslims and Christians sometimes facing discrimination and hate crimes.

 

Despite legal frameworks promoting gender equality, women in India face significant challenges, including gender-based violence, wage gaps, and underrepresentation in political and economic spheres. Gender-based violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault, remains pervasive, although laws such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act offer some protection.

 

While India decriminalised homosexuality in 2018, LGBTQ+ individuals still face significant social stigma and discrimination. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships and rights to marriage, adoption, and inheritance remain areas of ongoing advocacy.

 

In conclusion, while India’s legal framework prohibits discrimination, deep-rooted societal prejudices and systemic inequalities continue to challenge the full realisation of freedom from discrimination.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Discrimination is prevalent, and legal protections are either weak or non-existent. Marginalised groups face systemic inequality, and the state does little to address these disparities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Freedom from torture and inhuman treatment in India is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. India is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), though it has yet to ratify the convention, raising concerns about the adequacy of legal protections against torture. Domestic laws, such as the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, prohibit physical harm and custodial violence. However, incidents of torture and ill-treatment, particularly in police custody, continue to be reported.

 

Reports of custodial deaths, police brutality, and inhuman treatment by law enforcement agencies are ongoing issues in India. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous cases where individuals in police custody have been subjected to physical abuse, often to extract confessions or as a means of punishment. Despite laws in place, accountability for such abuses remains weak, and convictions of police officers involved in custodial violence are rare.

 

The Indian judiciary has played an important role in addressing custodial torture. The Supreme Court of India has passed several judgements reinforcing the rights of detainees, including the need for medical examinations and legal representation for those in custody. Despite these efforts, implementation at the ground level remains inconsistent.

 

While India’s constitution and judiciary provide safeguards against torture, the prevalence of custodial violence and the lack of a robust legal framework continue to undermine these protections.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are reported frequently, and legal protections are weak or rarely enforced. Law enforcement and security forces often act with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Protection of human rights defenders in India remains a significant concern, despite constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Expression and association. Human rights defenders in the country often face intimidation, harassment, legal challenges, and even physical violence, particularly when advocating for the rights of marginalised communities, such as Dalits, indigenous peoples, and religious minorities. The situation is especially dire for those raising issues related to environmental rights, land disputes, or criticising government policies.

 

Human rights defenders, particularly those working on environmental and land rights issues, face significant risks. The assassination of activists like Gauri Lankesh and attacks on those opposing large infrastructure projects or mining activities highlight the dangers faced by those challenging powerful interests. In many cases, perpetrators of violence against human rights defenders enjoy impunity, as investigations are slow and prosecutions rare.

 

India has also seen an increasing crackdown on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) critical of the government. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) has been used to restrict the funding of NGOs, particularly those advocating for human rights. Amnesty International, for example, was forced to halt operations in India in 2020 after its bank accounts were frozen, allegedly due to FCRA violations.

 

Despite these challenges, India has an active civil society, with numerous organisations continuing to fight for the protection of human rights defenders. However, ongoing state repression, misuse of legal frameworks, and lack of accountability for violence against activists remain serious obstacles.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Human rights defenders are frequently persecuted, harassed, or jailed for their work. Legal protections are minimal, and the state often seeks to suppress their activities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.7   Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression in India is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, allowing citizens to freely express opinions. However, Article 19(2) permits restrictions based on national security, public order, and other factors. In practice, laws such as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition law) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have been used to target dissenters, journalists, and activists, limiting their ability to criticise the government.

 

Media freedom in India is under pressure, with frequent reports of harassment and intimidation of journalists, and the country ranked poorly in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index. Furthermore, the Information Technology Rules, 2021 regulate online content and have raised concerns about censorship, especially on social media platforms.

 

Despite legal protections, these restrictions have created a challenging environment for free speech in India.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of Expression is heavily restricted. The press and media are frequently censored, and individuals face legal consequences or violence for expressing dissent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Freedom of religion or belief in India is constitutionally protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which grants all citizens the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. India is home to a diverse range of religious groups, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others, with the state maintaining a secular stance. However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions on the grounds of public order, morality, and health.

 

In practice, there have been concerns about rising religious intolerance and violence, particularly against religious minorities. In recent years, incidents of communal violence, mob lynchings, and hate crimes against Muslims, Christians, and Dalits have raised serious concerns about the protection of religious freedoms. Additionally, the rise of Hindu nationalist sentiment has led to increased pressure on minority religious communities, with laws such as anti-conversion laws being enacted in several states. These laws, aimed at preventing forced religious conversions, have often been criticised for targeting Christian and Muslim communities.

 

The government's handling of religious issues has also come under scrutiny, with critics alleging that it has not done enough to curb religious violence or protect vulnerable groups. International human rights organisations have raised concerns about growing restrictions on religious freedoms, calling for stronger measures to protect the rights of all religious communities in India.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of religion is restricted, with certain religious groups facing persecution or being banned. The state either privileges a dominant religion or, in secular states, imposes restrictions on all religious practices.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.9   Right to Privacy

 

The right to privacy in India was explicitly recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark Puttaswamy v. Union of India ruling in 2017. This right is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judgement strengthened protections for individual privacy, particularly in the context of data protection, surveillance, and bodily autonomy.

 

India does not yet have comprehensive legislation specifically governing privacy, though the Information Technology Act of 2000 and associated rules offer some protections concerning digital privacy and cybersecurity. These provisions mandate companies to safeguard user data, especially sensitive personal information. However, concerns remain regarding the adequacy of these protections in the face of increasing government surveillance and data collection.

 

The government's use of surveillance technology, such as the Aadhaar biometric identification system, has sparked debates about privacy infringements. Critics argue that without strong legal safeguards, there is potential for misuse, as Aadhaar links personal data to a centralised database. Moreover, the lack of a robust data protection law raises concerns about data breaches and the unauthorised use of personal information.

 

In conclusion, while the recognition of the right to privacy marks a positive step forward, challenges remain in terms of practical implementation and the protection of individual privacy in the digital age.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Privacy rights are legally recognised, but government surveillance is more common, and protections for personal data are inconsistent. Individuals have limited recourse for violations.”

 

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

The right to life and security of person in India is constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. However, in practice, challenges remain in ensuring these protections for all citizens.

 

India faces high levels of violence, including crimes such as murder, sexual assault, and gender-based violence. One of the most pressing concerns is the issue of gender-based violence, particularly violence against women.

 

Additionally, communal violence and mob lynchings, often targeting religious minorities, have raised serious concerns about the state’s ability to protect its citizens. Security forces, including the police, have also been implicated in extrajudicial killings, particularly in conflict regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where state security measures have been accused of overreach.

 

In terms of state action, law enforcement agencies have been criticised for their use of excessive force during protests and detentions. Allegations of police brutality, custodial deaths, and the use of unlawful force highlight gaps in ensuring the right to life and security of person for detainees and protesters.

 

In summary, while legal protections for the right to life exist, India continues to face significant challenges in addressing violence, ensuring law enforcement accountability, and protecting vulnerable populations.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The right to life is not consistently protected. Arbitrary killings, state violence, or widespread abuses by security forces are common, and accountability mechanisms are weak.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.8.11   Overall Score for India: 2.5/5

 

While India democratic governance and political participation, significant challenges persist in areas such as freedom from discrimination, torture, and protection of human rights defenders. Legal safeguards exist but are often inconsistently enforced, leading to systemic inequalities and state overreach in several sectors.



3.4.9   Indonesia's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.9.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Indonesia, freedom of assembly and association is guaranteed under the Constitution and various international human rights treaties to which Indonesia is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These legal frameworks ensure citizens' rights to peacefully assemble and form associations, including trade unions, political parties, and civil society organisations.

 

Despite these protections, the reality of exercising these rights is often challenging. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported frequent government restrictions on assemblies, particularly those that are critical of the government or related to sensitive political issues. Protests are often met with heavy-handed responses by the police, who have been criticised for using excessive force to disperse crowds, detaining protestors, and imposing arbitrary restrictions on gatherings. Protests related to labour rights, Indigenous land rights, and political dissent are particularly vulnerable to repression.

 

In addition to assembly rights, the right to form associations is also restricted in certain areas. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that advocate for human rights or environmental protections frequently face scrutiny, and in some cases, their activities are hindered by bureaucratic red tape or allegations of subversive activities. Labour unions, while legally permitted, have also encountered barriers, including intimidation and harassment of union leaders.

 

While Indonesia has strong legal provisions for these freedoms, in practice, the state's control over political expression and assembly remains a concern, particularly when it comes to activism critical of government policies.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections are inconsistent or weak. Protests are often subject to heavy policing or restrictions. Civil society groups face bureaucratic hurdles or occasional harassment.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Indonesia, the right to a fair trial and due process is enshrined in the Constitution and protected under national law. Indonesia is also a party to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees these rights. However, there are significant gaps in how these rights are implemented in practice.

 

Indonesia’s judicial system is often criticised for being inefficient and subject to corruption. Defendants from marginalised communities, particularly those from low-income or rural areas, often face difficulties in accessing legal representation. The country's public defender system is under-resourced, and legal aid is limited, which undermines the ability of defendants to receive a fair trial.

 

Additionally, concerns have been raised about pretrial detention, with individuals often held for long periods without formal charges. Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented cases where detainees have been denied access to legal counsel or faced coercion, including forced confessions during interrogations. Furthermore, the Human Rights Monitor highlights how trials are frequently undermined by the influence of powerful political and military actors, exacerbating systemic weaknesses.

 

The independence of the judiciary is another issue, as political pressure and corruption can influence court decisions. High-profile cases, particularly those involving political dissent, terrorism, or blasphemy, have raised questions about judicial impartiality.

 

In summary, while Indonesia has a legal framework that guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, in practice, these rights are often compromised due to systemic inefficiencies, corruption, and uneven access to justice.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Judicial independence is inconsistent. Some cases, especially political ones, experience government interference. Arbitrary detention or extended pretrial detention is reported but not widespread.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

In Indonesia, political participation and democratic governance are characterised by both progress and challenges. Since the fall of the authoritarian Suharto regime in 1998, Indonesia has transitioned into a democratic system, holding regular multiparty elections. These elections, generally considered free and fair, are key to the country’s political participation. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote, and political parties are active at both the local and national levels, with the People’s Consultative Assembly and the House of Representatives playing central roles in governance.

 

However, political participation is often constrained by systemic corruption and political patronage. Transparency International and Freedom House have raised concerns about the influence of money in politics, where candidates and parties with financial backing often have disproportionate sway. Additionally, while democratic mechanisms are in place, political freedoms have been restricted in certain contexts, particularly when dissent challenges the ruling government or security interests.

Indonesia has a vibrant civil society, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play an essential role in advocating for democratic reforms. However, there have been instances where activists and political opposition figures have faced harassment, intimidation, and legal action, particularly in regions such as West Papua, where separatist movements and protests have been met with state crackdowns.

 

Despite being one of the most populous democracies in the world, Indonesia's political landscape remains fraught with challenges, including voter disenfranchisement in remote areas and underrepresentation of women and marginalised groups in politics. Political participation in Indonesia is evolving, but concerns about corruption, authoritarian tendencies, and the protection of political freedoms remain.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Elections are generally free and fair, though there may be some political interference. Political opposition is allowed, but it faces certain challenges or limitations.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

In Indonesia, freedom from discrimination is legally guaranteed under the Constitution and further reinforced by laws such as the Human Rights Law (1999) and the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Law (2008).

 

Despite these legal frameworks, discrimination remains a significant issue in practice. Religious minorities, such as Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, and Shia Muslims, often face social and legal discrimination. Reports of violence against religious minorities, including the destruction of places of worship and harassment, are not uncommon, and local governments have been criticised for failing to protect these groups. Blasphemy laws, which have been used to target individuals for perceived insults to Islam, are another source of concern, leading to the persecution of minority groups and activists.

 

Gender discrimination is also prevalent, despite the legal protections in place. Women face challenges in accessing equal employment opportunities, and there are high rates of gender-based violence. Indonesia has made progress in addressing some of these issues, but enforcement of anti-discrimination laws remains inconsistent.

 

Indigenous peoples and members of the LGBTQ+ community also face marginalisation. Indigenous communities often struggle to defend their land rights against large-scale developments, while the LGBTQ+ population encounters societal stigma and legal barriers, with no specific legal protections in place for sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

While Indonesia’s legal framework provides some protections against discrimination, significant gaps remain in enforcement, and marginalised groups continue to face systemic challenges.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups, though the state does take some action to address these issues.”

References:

 

  

3.4.9.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In Indonesia, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is legally protected under the Constitution and international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), to which Indonesia is a party. Despite these formal commitments, reports of torture and ill-treatment, particularly by law enforcement and security forces, remain a significant concern.

 

Human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented numerous cases of police and military personnel using excessive force, particularly during interrogations and in detention centres. Torture is frequently reported in efforts to extract confessions from suspects, especially in cases involving political dissent or terrorism. Additionally, the conditions in many Indonesian prisons and detention facilities are described as inhumane, with overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate access to healthcare being common issues.

 

Indonesia’s security forces, particularly in regions like West Papua, have been repeatedly accused of using torture and inhuman treatment against Indigenous populations and political activists. While the government has established some mechanisms, such as the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), to address these issues, accountability remains weak, and perpetrators are rarely brought to justice.

 

Efforts to reform the police and military have been ongoing, but the lack of effective oversight and accountability continues to undermine the country’s progress in eradicating torture and ill-treatment.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are prohibited by law but reports of abuse by law enforcement or security forces are not uncommon. Accountability for violators is inconsistent.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.9.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In Indonesia, human rights defenders face considerable challenges, despite the country’s constitutional protections for Freedom of Expression and association. Those who advocate for the rights of marginalised communities, Indigenous people, environmental protection, or political dissent are particularly vulnerable to intimidation, harassment, and violence. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised concerns about the increasing risks faced by defenders, particularly those operating in sensitive areas like West Papua or those challenging government policies or corporate interests.

 

Environmental activists and land rights defenders are frequently targeted, especially those opposing large-scale infrastructure projects, logging, or mining activities. Many of these defenders face threats from private actors, including corporations, as well as state-backed security forces. In regions like West Papua, defenders advocating for political self-determination or the rights of Indigenous groups are at heightened risk of arbitrary detention, violence, and even extrajudicial killings.

 

Human rights defenders working on LGBTQ+ issues, women's rights, and migrant rights also report facing significant threats, including legal harassment, social stigma, and physical violence. Despite the existence of mechanisms such as the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), defenders often lack adequate protection, and perpetrators of violence against them are rarely held accountable.

 

In summary, while Indonesia has made strides in promoting human rights, the protection of human rights defenders remains a serious concern, with widespread impunity for violations and ongoing risks for those challenging powerful state and corporate interests.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Human rights defenders face some harassment or legal challenges, particularly when criticising the government. Protections are weak or inconsistently applied.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.7   Freedom of Expression

 

In Indonesia, Freedom of Expression is constitutionally guaranteed, but in practice, it is subject to significant limitations. Article 28 of the Constitution grants citizens the right to express their opinions, but various laws, including the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law, have been used to criminalise speech, especially online. Human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have raised concerns about the misuse of these laws to suppress criticism of the government, political figures, and state policies.

 

The ITE Law has been widely criticised for its vague definitions of defamation, which have led to prosecutions of journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens for their posts on social media. The law has been used to silence dissent, particularly in cases involving political corruption, environmental issues, or criticisms of powerful figures.

 

Journalists in Indonesia operate in a difficult environment, with reports of intimidation, harassment, and violence, particularly when covering sensitive issues such as human rights abuses in West Papua. In addition, media outlets that report on politically sensitive topics may face pressure from both the government and corporate interests, leading to self-censorship.

 

Freedom of Expression is further restricted through blasphemy laws, which are frequently used to target individuals accused of offending religious sensitivities. These laws have led to convictions and jail sentences for those deemed to have insulted religion, disproportionately affecting religious minorities and activists advocating for secularism.

 

In summary, while Freedom of Expression is legally protected in Indonesia, the government continues to use broad laws to restrict this right, targeting activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens, particularly in politically sensitive or religious contexts.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections exist but are weak. Some journalists and activists face censorship or legal repercussions for their work. Independent media faces bureaucratic or financial challenges.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.9.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

In Indonesia, freedom of religion or belief is constitutionally protected under Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees that all citizens are free to worship according to their own religion or belief. However, the practical application of this right is limited by both societal norms and government regulations, especially for religious minorities. The government officially recognises only six religions—Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism—creating a restrictive environment for those practicing other beliefs or non-religious groups.

 

Indonesia’s Blasphemy Law has been a significant tool for curbing religious freedom, often used to prosecute individuals for expressing beliefs that are seen as deviating from mainstream interpretations. The most high-profile case in recent years involved the former governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok), who was convicted of blasphemy in 2017 for comments perceived to insult Islam. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticised the blasphemy law for fostering intolerance and disproportionately affecting religious minorities, such as Christians, Ahmadis, and Shia Muslims.

 

Religious intolerance in Indonesia is exacerbated by both social and institutional pressures. In some regions, religious minorities face restrictions on building places of worship, and there have been reports of violence and intimidation against those attempting to practice their faith. For instance, Ahmadiyya and Shia communities have faced harassment, and local governments in certain areas have issued regulations that restrict their religious activities.

 

In summary, while Indonesia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the reality for many religious minorities is fraught with legal and societal challenges. The blasphemy law and other restrictive measures continue to limit religious freedom, especially for non-mainstream faiths and belief systems.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections exist but are inconsistently enforced. Religious minorities may face discrimination, and the state may impose limitations on religious practices.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.9   Right to Privacy

 

In Indonesia, the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but aspects of it are protected under other laws and regulations. The Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law and the Law on State Intelligence provide some legal framework around the use of personal data and surveillance, though these laws have raised concerns among human rights groups about state overreach.

 

The ITE Law, while initially designed to regulate online information and protect individuals from defamation and cybercrimes, has often been criticised for being vague, especially regarding privacy protections. The law has been used to criminalise online expression, and it permits broad surveillance of online activities, raising concerns about privacy violations.

 

Additionally, the Personal Data Protection Bill, which was passed in 2022, represents an important step toward formalising privacy protections, setting out rules for the collection, processing, and storage of personal data. This law aims to strengthen data protection, aligning with international standards, but its implementation remains uncertain, and enforcement mechanisms have yet to be fully developed.

 

Despite these legal frameworks, there are ongoing concerns about government surveillance and data collection practices. Reports of state monitoring of communications, particularly in politically sensitive regions such as West Papua, have raised concerns about the state's commitment to upholding privacy rights. Activists and human rights defenders have been particularly vulnerable to these surveillance practices.

 

In summary, while Indonesia has made progress in legislating privacy protections, particularly with the new data protection law, concerns remain about the state’s ability to balance security measures with respect for individual privacy rights.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Privacy rights are weak or frequently violated. Government surveillance and intrusion into personal data are widespread, and there is little accountability for breaches.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

In Indonesia, the right to life and security of person is protected under the Constitution and various international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a party. Despite these legal frameworks, the country faces ongoing challenges in fully protecting these rights, particularly in the areas of police violence, extrajudicial killings, and human rights abuses in conflict regions like West Papua.

 

Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented numerous cases of police brutality and excessive use of force, particularly during protests, in detention centres, and in the context of anti-drug operations. Extrajudicial killings have been reported, especially in conflict-prone areas like West Papua, where the military and police are accused of committing human rights violations against Indigenous populations and political activists. These incidents raise serious concerns about the state's capacity to protect the right to life.

 

Another major issue is the death penalty, which remains in force in Indonesia, primarily for drug-related offenses. The use of the death penalty has drawn international criticism, particularly because of concerns about fair trial standards and reports of torture used to extract confessions from suspects. The Indonesian government has maintained its stance on capital punishment despite growing calls for its abolition or at least a moratorium.

 

Gender-based violence is another critical area affecting the right to life and security of person in Indonesia. Rates of domestic violence and femicide are high, with many victims facing barriers to accessing justice. Laws aimed at protecting women and children from violence are often inadequately enforced, leaving vulnerable groups at risk.

 

In summary, while Indonesia has legal protections for the right to life and security of person, significant challenges remain, particularly in relation to police violence, the use of the death penalty, and gender-based violence.

 

Score: 3/5 – “The right to life is legally recognised, but certain populations face systemic violence or abuse (e.g., due to race, gender, or political views). Law enforcement often operates with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.9.11   Overall score for Indonesia: 3/5

 

Indonesia demonstrates a mixed record in its protection and enforcement of civil and political rights. The country has signed numerous international treaties and upholds a constitutional framework to protect these rights, but significant gaps remain in enforcement. While there are legal protections for rights such as Freedom of Expression and assembly, these are often undermined by restrictions, heavy policing, and inconsistent application, especially for minority groups. There are also concerns regarding the judiciary's independence and issues surrounding access to justice.

 

In areas such as freedom from discrimination and the protection of human rights defenders, Indonesia continues to face challenges, with harassment and limited legal recourse reported for marginalised communities and activists. Despite these shortcomings, efforts are being made to address human rights violations, though progress remains slow.




 

 
 
 
bottom of page