The Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Human Rights Bill, and State Accountability

Theoretically, norms recognizing rights should be accompanied by an obligation structure that makes those rights effective.

Rights without identifiable obligations risk becoming declarations that are difficult to enforce.

It is no surprise that public criticism has surfaced. PSHK and KontraS, for example, assess that several provisions remain abstract and fail to clearly specify the parties responsible for implementing, fulfilling, protecting, and guaranteeing the regulated rights (PSHK and KontraS, 2026).

The consequences are not merely technical or legislative. In daily life, rights lose meaning when someone cannot access public service buildings, obtain information in understandable formats, participate equally in court proceedings, or use digital services due to barriers unaddressed by the state. Here, the lack of accessibility and appropriate accommodation can turn into forms of discrimination.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Indonesia ratified through Law Number 19 of 2011, actually provides a complete and clear framework.

The Convention defines discrimination based on disability as actions that obstruct or deny equal enjoyment of rights, including refusal of reasonable accommodation.

Reasonable accommodation is understood as necessary modifications or adjustments in a particular circumstance, so long as they do not impose a disproportionate burden (United Nations, 2006).

Thus, accessibility should not be treated as an additional facility granted only when budgets or conditions allow. It is a prerequisite for enjoying rights equally.

Moreover, reasonable accommodation must not be positioned as an exception from general service standards.

Both are instruments to address barriers that factually prevent a person from enjoying their rights.

Undoubtedly, the RUU HAM needs to affirm this logic so equality does not stop at uniform treatment, which still results in exclusion.

This framework shows that equality does not always mean treating everyone the same way.

Substantive equality demands that the state recognize different barriers and take necessary actions so each individual can genuinely enjoy their rights.

Therefore, the mention of accessibility and reasonable accommodation in the RUU HAM should not merely revolve around general terms.

They need to be connected to concrete obligations of state institutions, public service providers, law enforcement officers, and even local governments.