Kontras: court ruling against Forkorus far from human rights principles and spirit of fair trial

The court ruling against Forkorus CS
Still Far from the human rights principles and the spirit of fair trial

The Commission for the Disappeared and victims of violence (KontraS) has regretted over the verdict of the judges in the District Court of Jayapura, West Papua, which sentenced Forkorus Yaboisembut, S. Pd, Edison Kladeus Waromi and three others, Dominikus Surabut, August M. Sananai Kraar dan Selpius Bobii in jail for 3 years on 16th March 2012. Despite each of the sentence is lighter than indictment of the prosecutor for five years in jail, it is still far from the principle of a fair trial and not socializing with the idea to build a Peaceful Papua through the dialogue.

Indonesia, as a democratic country and adopted a number of international instruments for human rights, the government is suppose to solve the problems in Papua more wisely, in the particular case of the verdict of the treason charged to Forkorus Cs. The court is not supposed to be conducted as there is another way around which will more effective and dignified based on the human rights instruments such as through the dialogue that will socialize the case so far.

The treason charged to Forkorus Cs, in fact, is considered too extreme as no one has used violence or violates any of the national rules and regulations during the congress of Papuan People III that held in 17 to 19 October 2012. What Forkorus Cs has conducted is a part of freedom of expression in peaceful manner which stated in Universal Declaration on Human rights article 19, Civil and political rights convention article 19 and 20, and also in other international rules and regulations. From the view of the domestic regulation framework, the guaranty of the freedom of expression is also stated in national regulations such as in 1945 Constitution, Law no 39 in 1999 and Law no 12 in 2005 that related to human rights which ratified in civil and political rights covenant. It is stated by defendants’ lawyers under their defence which is known as Bring democracy to the court and struggling peace for Papuan People.

Based on the result of the investigation and monitoring of the national human rights commission, the allegation of human rights abuses were committed by the security forces (police and military), in the forms of excessive force, violence, torture and other cruel treatments. However, the fact-finding mission was never followed up by the legal basis either by the police or national human rights commission.
By observing the sentences read by the panel judges which consisted of Jack Johanis Octavianus, SH as chief justice and four other members of judge, I Ketut Nyoman Swarta, SH.MH, George Mambrasar, SH.MH, Orpa Martina, SH, Willem Marco, it has raised a number of problematic notes that need to be questioned based on the information collected by the coalition of civil society organizations, which dedicated to enforce the law and human rights in Papua such as:

Firstly, the sentence of the panel judges show inconsistency in case of dealing with evidences related to the treason. The judges argued that the defendants have convincing and legally proven by law related to the articles of treason and proven to conduct an experiment.
Secondly, no credible witnesses have been brought to the court. While only one witness who comes from the society, seven other witnesses are coming from the police who did not see directly what happened in the field. So, of course they against the defendants and moreover, another five witnesses who come from the society also against defendants too during their testimonies of the court hearing. Those five people who testified in the court are also the participants of the demonstration that arrested and violated by the police during the process of interrogation. Their witnesses are not supposed to be in any consideration during the hearing.

Thirdly, during the hearing, the judges were able to present only one evidence or banner, while there have to be mentioned 69 evidences that the sentence referred to.

Fourthly, Gustav Kawer, one of the lawyers was criminalized because he was assessed as person who disturb the hearing.
KontraS supported the measurement taking by the lawyer who would file an appeal over the judgement since the hearing is not matching with the human rights principle and fair trial. She has submitted questions to the government regarding its commitments to solve problems in Papua through peace process, considering that the way which the government criminalized and implemented the article of treason would make the peace discourse further in Papua. The agenda to push the peace process in Papua is supposed to be fitted within the policy conducted by the government such as to stop the implementation of treason articles indiscriminately and to free from arbitrary arrest to who have not committed any violence or violation during the demonstration.

Jakarta, 16 Maret 2012
Badan Pekerja,

Indria Fernida
Wakil Koordinator

Contact Person: 08161466341 (Indria Fernida)

Appeal against Papuan Congress treason convictions launched

From West Papua Media sources in Jayapura
EXCLUSIVE
March 19, 2012
After an Indonesian court on March 16 sentenced  five Congress leaders guilty of Makar (treason) three years in prison each, lawyers for the men have today launched a formal appeal against the sentences in the Jayapura Class 1a district court.
The five defendants, Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, Selfius Bobii, Dominikus Sorabut, and Agus Kraar, were leaders and organisers of the Third Papuan People’s Congress held on October 19 2011, which was brutally broken up by Indonesian security forces after Forkorus  – the Chairman of the Papuan Tribal Council elected as President of the Federated Republic of West Papua – unilaterally reaffirmed West Papua’s independence from Indonesia.
An SMS just sent to West Papua Media from the legal team defending the five men said “promptly at 15:00 (West Papua time), our team of legal advisors has stated appeals in Class IA Jayapura District Court in connection with the Makar case on behalf Forkorus, et al, against 3 year prison sentence imposed by the judges of  (the)  Court, for being convicted of a crime of attempted treason”.
The SMS stated that the crimes the men were convicted under “also referred to in Article 106 of the Criminal Code,  Article 55 paragraph (1) of the  Criminal Code, together with Article 53 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, (we have lodged) a statement of appeal of the verdict of Class IA Jayapura District Court”
“This judgement does not have the force of law, then the case must be reviewed by the Jayapura High Court Judge,” according to the SMS.
“The reason we (have) appealed the decision of the Court of Jayapura (is because it is) essentially inconsistent with the facts of the trial, both from witnesses, evidence and the testimony of the defendant,” the legal team said.  “Also it is not in agreement with the Book of the Law of Criminal Procedure.”
The date that the appeal is set down to be heard is not known at the time of publication, as the lodged appeal had yet to be processed by the court.
westpapuamedia

Open Letter from Forkorus and Edison Waromi to International Community


Open Letter

FROM:

Forkorus Yaboisembut and Edison Waromi, in their own name and on behalf of the West Papuan people.

TO:

the Secretary-General United Nations Mr. Ban Ki-moon,

the EU high representative for foreign affairs Catherine Ashton,

former US president Bill Clinton,

the UN under-secretary general and emergency relief coordinator at UN OCHA Valerie Amos,

the US director if national intelligence James Clapper,

the Interpol president Khoo Boon Hui,

the US homeland security secretary Janet Napollitano,

former Filipno president Fidel Valdez Ramos, and

former prime minister Tony Blair.

 

 

18 March, 2012

Dear Madam,

Dear Sirs,

It is with great expectation that we learn that a most distinguished delegation where under your selves will visit Jakarta from March 19 until March 21 at the occasion of the next coming Jakarta International Defense Dialog.

The undersigned Forkorus Yaboisembut and Edison Waromi take the opportunity of this next coming visit to address in their personal name as well as on behalf of the West Papuan people the present Open Letter to the World leaders.

Both undersigned are presently under illegal detention in Jayapura in West Papua for no other reasons than making continuous efforts for human rights, democracy and self-determination for West Papua.  They are individually victims of violations of Human Rights, such as the people of West Papua are collectively victims of violations of Human Rights.

The undersigned both being in jail, they address by this Open Letter a cry for obtaining the so-needed special attention of the world leaders, especially since instructions were given by the Indonesian authorities (on the date of 9 February, 2012, at 10am, in the Ashton Hotel Papua in Jayapura, in the presence of Indonesian Army chiefs, Police chiefs, the Governor of Papua, Policy Information Services, BIN, BAIS, BMP and others), in order not to refrain from violating Human Rights in the framework of the ongoing process for treason against both undersigned. Also, the message was given by officials to the judges present at that meeting of 9 February, 2012, to give no room for any defense to the defendants and lawyers of the undersigned for the defense of their case.

Being without any normal legal defense as should be allowed, this Open Letter goes beyond the only matter of Human Rights and self-determination for the West-Papuan people.

It is the very hope of the West Papuan people and the undersigned that the honorable delegation at the Jakarta International Defense Dialog will not turn around and no longer ignore the major problems West Papua is facing due to the absence since decennia of a fair and democratic approach of handling Human Rights and rights to self-determination towards West Papua, as well as a fair repartition of wealth towards West Papua (see infra).

It must unfortunately be said that the successive Indonesian regimes and their successive Governments have never been politically prepared to give fair chances for introducing human rights, democracy and self-determination to West Papua.

The Indonesian regimes and their successive Governments have totally neglected and continue to neglect the under the rules of international public law most respectable and fundamental aspirations of the West Papuan people to their basic rights which are fully consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other applicable instruments in the field of Human Rights law.

The political motivations of the undersigned are only those directly related to basic Human Rights and those protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly held in New York on 16 December 1966 which became into force on 23 March 1976, and to which the Republic of Indonesia acceded on 23 February 2006.

The undersigned act in good faith in accordance with the principles of Human Rights, and nothing in the present Open Letter stands contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

Hereunder follows a non-exhaustive list of several aspects of violations of Human Rights occurred, ongoing and/or with a high risk of re-occurring:

  1. the denial of the right of self-determination,
  2. the rights of indigenous people,
  3. the rights of minorities,
  4. arbitrary detention,
  5. enforced and involuntary disappearances,
  6. extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions,
  7. torture and other crual or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
  8. the right to food,
  9. the freedom of peaceful assembly,
  10. the freedom of opinion and expression,
  11. the right of access to the territory for journalists,
  12. the right to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste,
  13. the right to safe drinking water,
  14. violence against women

For the sake of good order and comprehension follows here a recapitulation of the history and situation of generalized violations of Human Rights by Indonesia towards West Papua, and the denial of self-determination for West Papua by Indonesia.

  1. In 1969 the Indonesian government, after having received from the United Nations the provisional administration over West Papua, organizes the so-called “Act of Choice”;
  2. The “Act of Choice” took place under conditions totally the opposite of the right to self-determination;
  3. The conditions under which the “Act of Choice”  took place were totally the opposite of those decided by the UN for letting the people of West Papua freely express themselves on their future political regime;
  4. During the years after the “Act of Choice” and up to now  the West Papuan population has on a continued basis reminded that the “Act of Choice” has taken place under falsified and non-democratic conditions;
  5. The procedure for determining the future of West Papua therefore never took place under conditions which may make expire the basic civil and political rights of the West Papuan indigenous people;
  6. The West Papuan indigenous people still have their rights to decide on the way they choose for self-determination;
  7. The United Nations General Assembly has in 1969 acted the result of the” Act of Free Choice” and has given execution to that result;
  8. This meant that West Papua became annexed to the Republic of Indonesia as an integral part of Indonesia;
  9. West Papua therefore was forced to stay in a colonial system;
  10. Only the Rule was substituted;
  11. What happened to be the Dutch Rule was substituted or exchanged into an Indonesian Rule;
  12. The legal result in terms of International Public Law is that West Papua never lost its rights to step out of the colonial system;
  13. The West Papuan people under the present system being  annexed and fully integrated in the Republic of Indonesia still has its full rights for self-determination, as well as its civil and political rights;
  14. Those rights for self-determination follow the particularities of the West Papuan people;
  15. It is not contested that the West Papuan people is distinguished from Indonesia;
  16. The West Papuan region is by geography totally separated from Indonesia;
  17. The ethnic origins of the West Papuan people are Melanesian, and not Indonesian;
  18. The language spoken is also from origins totally different from the official Indonesian language;
  19. On the religious side, 80 % of the West Papuan people are Christian, the same percentage is trough for the Islamic people of the total of Indonesia;
  20. The fundamental differences with Indonesia were already recognized by the former Dutch colonizer;
  21. The former Dutch colonizer therefore organized its administration over West Papua totally separated from its administration over Indonesia;
  22. Indonesia obtained independence in 1949;
  23. This independence took place without any link to a possible annexation of West Papua to Indonesia;
  24. This independence also happened without any demand or claim from Indonesia for an annexation of West Papua;
  25. At the moment of the preparation of Indonesia’s independence there was also no demand neither a suggestion from The Netherlands to annex West Papua to Indonesia at the occasion of the independence of Indonesia;
  26. West Papua then stayed without any change under the Dutch Rule;
  27. West Papua came only in 1963 under certain and by the United Nations well defined conditions temporarily under the administration of Indonesia;
  28. No decision by the United Nations General Assembly can take away from any people its basic rights for self-determination, as well as its civil and political rights;
  29. The people of West Papua therefore never have lost their rights for self-determination, civil and political rights, neither to free themselves from colonialism;
  30. The fault for that infringement to non-contested rights and principles of Human Rights is the non-contestable falsification by the Republic of Indonesia of the conditions imposed for a fair and democratic organization of the ”Act of Free Choice”;
  31. The Republic of Indonesia is fully responsible for the situation whereby West Papua has never had the occasion to make use under fair circumstances, and following  a democratic way, of its fundamental rights for leaving the colonial system;
  32. The fact that the United Nations General Assembly in 1969 has not refused the results of the “Act of Free Choice” as presented to the General Assembly can in no way do expire the basic Human Rights of the people of West Papua;
  33. The fact that the United Nations General Assembly of 1969 has given the administration of West Papua to Indonesia, West Papua becoming by this an integral part of Indonesia does in no way do expire West Papua’s rights to self-determination and  come out from a colonial system;
  34. The West Papuan people did never lose and can never lose their internal rights for self-determination;
  35. The internal right to self-determination is a non-contested right of International Public Law;
  36. West Papua moreover also fulfills the conditions for external rights to independence following the United Nations Resolution 2625 of 1970.
  37. Protection to territorial integrity of a State then indeed became conditioned by the state’s behavior in conformity with the principle of equal rights and self-determination, and governance by a Government representing the whole of the State’s population without discrimination on grounds such as race, religion or color.
  38. Indonesia has at the occasion of its accession to the so-called BUPO Covenant  (see below) made most clear that it indeed fails to respect the conditions imposed for making use or benefitting  of the protection of territorial integrity;
  39. In no way one may ascertain or accept that the West Papuan people has been in the situation to participate actively and effectively to its self-determination, as well as to the decision making on the way it would be administered;
  40. The opposite has happened;
  41. The by Indonesia in 2001installed Autonomy Act can under International Public Law never be a substitute to the basic Human Right of self-determination, neither a substitute to basic Civil and Political rights;
  42. The Autonomy Act moreover was used by the Indonesian Government as an instrument for further administering the West Papuan people in a way that is not corresponding to comply with effective Human Rights;
  43. This became very soon clear and the Autonomy Act was refused by the West Papuan Congress after 4 years of giving it a fair chance;
  44. It cannot be denied that infringements against Human Rights occurred in various domains;
  45. These domains are mentioned here above;
  46. Infringements against Human Rights are still ongoing or present a high risk of re-occurring;
  47. Moreover, Indonesia has effectively shown that its administering of the West Papuan people and way of internal and international law making process is one of window dressing and lacks any legal ground;
  48. Indonesia has acceded to the so-called BUPO Covenant on 23 February 2006;
  49. Indonesia has however at the occasion of its accession to the BUPO Covenant excluded article one of the effects of its accession;
  50. Article one of the BUPO Covenant read as follows:

50.1.     1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

50.2.     2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

50.3.     3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

51.  Indonesia has however made the following Declaration at the occasion of its accession to the BUPO Covenant :”With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words “the right of self-determination” appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and cannot be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.”

  1. Indonesia has by acting in this way put itself aside and above basic Human Rights;
  2. Indonesia has by such exclusion clearly showed its way of administering the West Papuan people, i.e. by excluding  them from basic Human Rights;
  3. One must even recognize that Indonesia’s Declaration excluding the full application of article one of the BUPO Covenant is without any legal effect since such Declaration totally brings to zero a most substantial part of the covenant;
  4. Also, the wording used by Indonesia in its Declaration at the occasion of its accession to the BUPO Covenant would imply all of the states having ratified or accessed to the BUPO Covenant (see last word “states”), what of course makes null the total of its Declaration, and therefore leaves without any legal incidence or impact its Declaration.
  5. The conclusion of the foregoing is that Indonesia, even while accessing to international  treaties relating to Human Rights, takes the occasion to exclude the West Papuan people from basic Human Rights such as the right to self-determination, as well as Civil and Political rights;
  6. This state comportment of Indonesia is an infringement of basic articles of the United Nations Charter, and for membership-conditions of the United Nations Organization.

The undersigned apply for all appropriate further actions by the world leaders at the occasion of the from March 19 until March 21 Jakarta International Defense Dialog, and their recognition that the West Papuan situation must be resolved in accordance with all the West Papuan rights to self-determination as well as Human Rights, without any exception whatsoever.

The undersigned confirm their wish to re-establish normal speaking terms with Indonesia, and make workable a new modus vivendi for the future and welfare of West Papua and its people, as well as all of the stakeholders of its economic actors.

In this framework the undersigned aim to be directly involved in the announced renegotiations of mine-, gas-, and oil contracts recently cited as political priority by the competent Minister of Energy, his Excellency Jero Wacik.

For the whole of this subject of renegotiations of mine-, gas-, and oil contracts, the undersigned aim for starting urgently a neutral audit by a reputed international audit firm they will choice for an examination in depth of the application that was given regarding the 70 to 80% repartition of wealth as part of the Autonomy Act since 2001.

The undersigned do hope that indeed their action may lead to a better re-distribution of wealth, and more prosperity to all stakeholders, at all levels, in total conformity with international private and public law.

In that sense the undersigned have asked to the ILO in Geneva for assisting them in order to establish well regulated labor organizations under UN norms.

Also, the undersigned are delighted to learn about a revival of economic interest in the region, and the visit of entrepreneurs of the private sector. The undersigned aim to be associated and to actively take part to the discussions in that matter.

The undersigned do hope that in agreement with the World leaders, the Presidency, Vice-Presidency, and the entire Government of Indonesia, one may enter into most prosperous relations between parties for all of the issues mentioned above.

Sincerely yours,

Forkorus Yaboisembut, and

Edison Waromi.

18 March, 2012

Federal Republic of West Papua is registered at the UN

JUBI, 2 March 2012At the latest hearing of the trial of Forkorus Yaboisembut, Forkorus  announced that  the proclamation of the Federal Republic of West Papua had been registered with the UN Security Council in order to receive international recognition. This happened on 26 February, said Edison Waromi, the prime minister of the Federal Republic of West Papua, in response to questions from the judge at the trial.He also announced that they had received an acknowledgement from the secretariat of the UN. The registration of the Federal Republic at the UN has been recorded under No Rr.827567846 BT, he told the court.

Forkorus also confirmed this, and went on to say that the Papuan people should work together to get recognition of the Federal Republic and should stop calling for a referendum or for dialogue. ‘Let us focus on getting international recognition,’ he said .

‘Very soon, there will be a country that will recognise our independence and our people should prepare themselves to support this,’ said Forkorus without mentioning which country he had in mind.

Hariyadi Wirawan, an international observer connected with the University of Indonesia, said: ‘This move is intended to get international recognitions because the problem of West Papua has never being solved. What is being demanded for West Papua would follow the scenario of the independence of Kosovo which succeeded in gaining recognition of its independence with the help of an international institution.’

Defence lawyer in Forkorus trial to be reported to the police

Bintang Papua, 1 March 2012

As a result of an incident during the 24 February hearing in the trial of Forkorus Yaboisembut, it is possible that a member of the defence team  is to be reported   to the police by the chief prosecutor at the trial.

One of the prosecutors, Julius Teuf, said that the problem is still under discussion at the prosecutor’s office. ‘But after having studying the matter and seeing whether we have strong evidence, it is clear that we will report a member of the defence team, Gustaf Kawar, for inappropriate behaviour during the hearing on 24 February.’

The incident occurred as the defence lawyer was interrogating a witness when there were a number of interruptions from the prosecutors. He therefore shouted to the prosecutor: ‘Cant you use your brain, I am still talking?’

In response, the prosecutor later said: ‘Why did he say such a thing? If I dont have a brain, how is it that I am sitting here as a prosecutor, an employee of the state as part of its legal apparatus?’

For his part, Gustaf Kawar said: ‘It is beyond comprehension that the prosecutor’s team will report me to the police. It is very usual for statements like that to be made during the course of any trial.’ He went on to explain what had happened.

‘The incident occurred while the lawyer was questioning one of the witnesses and the prosecutor kept interrupting me which is why I responding eventually by saying. ‘You should use your brain, I am still speaking so please be patient.’

According to Kawar, the prosecutor was very offended by these words, whereas it often occurs that words are used by either side or by the defendants in the course of a trial, causing tensions. He also said that he had reported the matter to the Indonesian association of jurists, Paradi.

The secretary of the central council of Peradi. Bob Wahyu Wibowo,  said that there was a general understanding  between the chief of police  and the leaders of Peradi, espressing their concern.  These words were said  during the source of the trial of Forkorusa and colleagues and what the lawyer said was all within  the framework of pursuing the defence of his client.’ He also referred to the law on advocates No 18/2003  which states that  a lawyer shall not be charged  for either  a criminal or a civil offence while in the process of performing his professional duties.

Kawar said: ‘I am a lawyer, one of the pillars of law enforcement. Some of us have things to support us during a trial such as the police who carry arms, but we lawyers have nothing. yet as a lawyer we can be arrested and face charges.’

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑