A/HRC/8/52 page 135 freedom of religion. It is merely an effort by the Government to uphold law and public order and the protection of the followers of Ahmadiyah from criminal attack. In other words, the Government limits its role to the levels of maintaining law and order and the protection of citizens. It does not interfere with religious doctrines or limit religious freedom. 344. With regard to the recommendation to abolish the death penalty, Indonesia maintained that the issue is linked to the national legal system which unquestionably falls under the sovereign jurisdiction of individual member states. The death penalty remains part of Indonesia’s positive law, namely the Indonesian Penal Code. The provision related to capital punishment was retained by decisions democratically taken through a parliamentary process. The issue has also been the subject of various public debates, and only last year was brought to the Constitutional Court for review, which decided that the application of the death penalty remains fully compatible with the Constitution. 345. Indonesia stated, however, that its belief is that the death penalty should be applied in a very selective and limited manner and only for very serious crimes. The fullest legal precautions must be applied exhaustively and the strictest criteria observed throughout the judicial process leading to a possible application of the death sentence. Indonesia stated that it supports any efforts to strengthen safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice. 346. Indonesia stated that it attaches great importance to establishing cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, including special procedures, which may take various forms, of which country visit invitations are only one. Indonesia expressed its view that a country visit serves as an important tool for the special procedures to perform their task effectively, and may answer the need of certain member states in seeking expert advice to assist efforts. In this regard, the decision of a State as to when and what specific special procedure should be invited for a country visit will be dictated by its own needs and priorities. 347. Indonesia informed the Council that since 1991, it has received 11 different special procedure mandate holders for the purposes of a country visit as well as a number of other United Nations human rights mechanisms, as well as visits by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, comparable to those countries which have extended standing invitations. In the 11 months between December 2006 and November 2007, it has consecutively received three special procedures, namely the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders and a second visit by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture. Hence, Indonesia was of the view that cooperation of countries with the special procedures mechanisms should not be based on or measured merely by extending standing invitations but rather on the assessment of the added value derived from such a visit to meet the needs and priorities of the country concerned. 348. Indonesia added that the voluntary pledges and commitments offered by a country are an important feature of the promotion and protection of human rights, since they are made based on the measured abilities and resources available in that country. In this context, Indonesia stated that it places a high value on the universal periodic review as a breakthrough mechanism. It offered its voluntary commitment to disseminate information on the review process in Indonesia through the involvement of civil society and national human rights institutions.