The Indonesian and Canadian criminal justice systems are radically different. This can create the potential stress and practical difficulties in facing criminal charges in both . For instance, please note that in Indonesia:

There is usually no preliminary evidentiary hearing, so that a person can argue arrest, investigation or detention without first proving guilt. This makes the criminal justice system more susceptible to unfair trials and miscarriages of justice. The current penal code continues to allow the conviction of a person based on insufficient evidence. The amendment of the penal code and the drafting of the penal code amendments has resulted in an enhanced protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, these changes fall short of fulfilling the requirements of article nine of the international human right’s convention, which guarantees the right to fair trial.

The drafting of the penal code continues to discriminate against religious and other religious groups, denying them the right to practice their religion freely. The provision on freedom of religion also excludes people from certain categories of criminal justice offences such as terrorism and crimes against humanity. As a result, Indonesian and Canadian human rights defenders are frequently denied access to complain about any violations of their rights during the conduct of criminal proceedings.

The lack of a preliminary investigation into the commission of an adult criminal offence creates undue pressure and hindrance to complainants. Many complainants are reluctant to come forward for fear of being subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment. Others are afraid of being subjected to summary executions. Inadequate resources for the operation of the courts create substantial challenges to the functioning of the courts. These challenges are particularly acute in rural areas where inadequate infrastructure and lack of judicial assistance are causing serious shortcomings in the administration of criminal cases. The draft code continues to discriminate against women and persons belonging to social groups under the guise of protecting them from crime.

The criminal law also continues to be vague and ambiguous with regard to private right of action. The provision on private right of action in the Indonesian legal system is considered by experts to be restrictive to peaceful expression. The provision continues to allow execution of laws to protect property and persons. This means that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association are not guaranteed in the constitution.

The criminal procedure in Indonesia is characterized by lengthy waiting period before the suspects can be arrested. The minimum waiting period is six months. There are no independent investigative bodies to prevent arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment in the name of preventing abuse and violence against the citizens. In addition, there is a lack of due process safeguards in the formulation and application of national law. The role of the prosecutor is limited to providing testimony in the case of accuse. There have been instances where suspects have been arbitrarily arrested and later convicted on flimsy grounds.

The judicial system in Indonesia is not well developed and there are inadequate numbers of lawyers practicing in the country. The lack of adequate resources has significantly hindered the development of criminal procedure law. There is a provision to provide for an independent and impartial ombudsperson to the courts to enable them to undertake independent reviews of the performance of the administration of justice system and the implementation of the law. The ombudsperson is appointed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. However, the appointment of such an individual is not yet applicable to all crimes.

There are no guarantees for the constitutionality of the law. Although the constitution contains a number of provisions on human rights, it does not mention any provision on criminal procedure. It is for the people, by peaceful means, to decide whether the constitutionality of the law is guaranteed. It is the role of the people, through active involvement, to ensure that the constitution is not violated. The role of the courts is to review the activities of government and determine if the constitution is being abused to advance political interests