In Indonesia, Islamic norms have been codified into State family law and divorce petitions are handled by State ‘Religious Courts’ (Pengadilan Agama). Formal, court-annexed mediation at the Religious Courts exists alongside customary (adat) mediation at the community level. In cases involving domestic and family violence, victims are socially expected to mediate at the community level before proceeding to the Religious Courts for formal determination of divorce petitions. At the Religious Courts, mediation is currently compulsory for all divorce petitions, even where there is proof or allegations of domestic and family violence. We argue that mediation should not be compulsory for victims of domestic and family violence who seek divorce via State family law avenues. In practice, victims bringing divorce petitions to the courts have generally already participated in mediation at the community level and therefore, further mediation has little—if any—utility. Further, there are well-documented risks for victims of domestic and family violence in mediation contexts. We draw on the comparative models of family violence screening from Australia and Canada to argue that similar screening processes should be introduced into Indonesia’s Religious Courts in order to exempt such cases of violence from compulsory mediation.

中文翻译：

---

印度尼西亚宗教法庭内部：家庭暴力筛查和强制调解豁免的争论

在印度尼西亚，伊斯兰教规范已被编入国家家庭法，离婚申请由国家“宗教法院”（Pengadilan Agama）处理。宗教法庭的正式法院附属调解与社区层面的习惯调解 (adat) 并存。在涉及家庭暴力的案件中，社会期望受害者在向宗教法院正式裁决离婚申请之前先在社区一级进行调解。在宗教法院，目前所有离婚申请都必须进行调解，即使有证据或指控存在家庭暴力。我们认为，对于通过州家庭法途径寻求离婚的家庭暴力受害者来说，调解不应该是强制性的。在实践中，向法院提起离婚诉讼的受害人一般都已经参与过社区层面的调解，因此，进一步的调解几乎没有什么用处。此外，家庭暴力受害者在调解过程中面临的风险也是有据可查的。我们借鉴澳大利亚和加拿大家庭暴力筛查的比较模式，认为印度尼西亚的宗教法院应引入类似的筛查程序，以使此类暴力案件免于强制调解。