This article is about Indonesia, but OpenTrial is applicable to other countries with legal systems that are perceived to be corrupt including: Paraguay, Peru, Cameroon, Macedonia, Bolivia, Mexico, Croatia, India, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Gabon, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Ukraine, Panama, Turkey, Senegal, Morocco, Taiwan, Russia, Venezuela, Congo, Chile, Poland, Moldova, Albania, Romania, Pakistan and Serbia.

LAYING BARE FOR JUSTICE

In 2002, much to the chagrin of the Indonesian government, United Nations special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy, after investigating judicial graft in Indonesia and the independence of the judiciary, branded Indonesia's legal system as one of the worst he had come across. Since then the U.N., Amnesty International and the Asian Development Bank have reported that detainees are routinely tortured for confessions, sexual favours are extracted from female suspects, and bribes are regularly demanded by corrupt judges, prosecutors and police. Only recently, a survey by the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation (YBHI) found that about 70 to 80 percent of detainees in the country suffered violence under police investigation.

Indeed, torture sessions by the police, that last days and often take place in private houses, include beatings with fists, shoes, sticks, chains, iron bars, hammers and cables, gun shots through the calf, electrocution, the thrusting of screwdrivers in ears and even mock executions. Defending lawyers who impede this abuse have been known to suffer similar treatment.

Indonesia's legal system is, in fact, so seriously dysfunctional it cannot be considered credible. Failure to pay, for example, a prosecutor up to the US$45,000 some demand in drug cases, often in collusion with judges and lawyers, can lead, very tragically, to the innocent being executed.

Earlier this year, just how determined the police were to maintain the status quo that undermines the rule of law, became all too evident. The intrepid Corruption Eradication Committee (KPK), which had successfully netted corrupt government officials, national lawmakers, public prosecutors, provincial governors and central bankers, had the audacity to wiretap a police chief, whereupon, without ado, the police force waged war against the KPK using the weapon of fabricated evidence.

Outraged members of the public promptly protested in the street, compelling President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to set up a special task force to focus initially on rooting out corruption in police and prosecutor offices across the country.

The deleterious consequences of this systemic undermining of the rule of law are all too evident in Indonesia: injustice, human rights abuse, conflict, and distorted scarce resource allocation manifested by poverty, unemployment, disaffection, extremism and environmental destruction.

The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, known for his work on the informal economy, credits the rule of law as being key to economic development, as it allows a “modern nation to grow and so bring peace, stability, and prosperity to the world”. Indeed, if President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is to attract the US$200 billion a year he needs in foreign investment to create jobs and prosperity, the rule of law must be given the highest priority.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) the English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer, declared that: “Publicity is the very soul of justice. ....... It keeps the judge, while trying, under trial.” Accordingly, OpenTrial-Indonesia is a pioneering project that makes the best use of modern communications technology in the cause of openness, and is based on the findings of Transparency International and research undertaken over the last few years.

The OpenTrial-Indonesia approach has enormous potential to open up the Indonesian legal system to public scrutiny, thereby radically changing its culture. Harnessing the power of the internet, OpenTrial-Indonesia aims to provide the very elements that experts agree would reduce legal system corruption. Using a Content Management System website and harnessing RTI laws to populate it with legal system data and archives, it aims to limit the authority of decision-makers within the justice system, reduce the unfettered discretion of administrative office-holders, strengthen the transparency and accountability of all involved in the system, and generally transform social attitudes toward justice system corruption.