Tag: Indonesian National Armed Forces

AHRC: Manokwari Court acquits four Papuan students but sentences one more student with rebellion

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-046-2011

4 October 2011

[RE: AHRC-UAU-041-2011: INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial]
———————————————————————
INDONESIA: Manokwari Court acquits four Papuan students but sentences one more student with rebellion

ISSUES: Freedom of expression, Indigenous Peoples, Independence of Judges and Lawyers
———————————————————————

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information from the Institute for Research, Recognition and Development of Legal Aid (LP3BH) in West Papua regarding the sentencing of another Papuan student and the acquittal of four others in relation to their involvement in a peaceful protest on 14 December 2010. While the AHRC welcomes the acquittal of four of the seven victims brought before court the sentencing of the other three presents a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Concerns over the imprisonment of Mr. Bleskadit and the application of the rebellion charge against peaceful protesters in other cases in West Papua remain.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

In the urgent appeal on 23 June 2011 (AHRC-UAC-117-2011), the AHRC raised concerns about the rebellion charges against seven people, for organizing and participating in a peaceful protest and the raising of a West Papuan flag that symbolizes self determination. At the correctional facility, they were ill-treated and denied medical care for weeks resulting in serious health conditions. (photo: Melki Bleskadit in court, source:LP3BH)

On 18 August 2011, the Manokwari district court sentenced Melki Bleskadit (also known as Melkianus Bleskadit) to two years imprisonment. On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was sentenced to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. The AHRC learned that the verdicts were declared based on a flawed process and issued an update AHRC-UAU-041-2011.

On 27 September 2011, the judges panel acquitted four of the five other Papuan students. According to the Manokwari court’s decision No: 84/Pid.B/2011/PN.Mkw, Mr Alex Duwiri and Mr John Wilson Wader were not guilty of acts of rebellion under article 106 jo, (in conjunction with) Article 55 and 56 of the criminal code. The Courts decision No. : 85/Pid.B/2011/PN.Mkw under the same charges declared Mr Panehas Serongon alias Panehas Sarongon and Mr Yance Sekenyap as not guilty. However, according to the latter decision, Mr Jhon Raweyai alias Joni was proven guilty for participating in the rebellion crime, and was sentenced to 9 (nine) months and 17 (seventeen) days imprisonment, most of which has by now already been served during pretrial detention.

The AHRC is of the opinion that the conduct of any peaceful protest is protected by the Indonesian Constitution and international human rights law applicable to Indonesia. Laying criminal charges against the protesters based on the content of the opinion shared violates the victim’s right to freedom of expression in this case. The relevant articles in the Indonesian Criminal Code that originates from the Dutch colonial period have to be reviewed and their further application halted. The AHRC has noted that several steps taken by the authorities have in the recent past aggravated tensions including the stigmatization many indigenous Papuans including activists as rebels. Many are charged and sentenced in flawed processes that lack impartiality and professional standards of judicial conduct, such as in the case of Mr. Bleskadit and Mr. Yenu. The perpetrators of such rights violations are rarely held accountable, which prolongs the use of the courts for political interests. In the cases of Mr Bleskadit and Mr. Yenu, no information regarding accountability actions against the perpetrators are known.

The court held four of the victims not guilty after they had spent approximately nine months in prison without proper access to medical care. Indonesian law entitles the victims to compensation for the deprivation of their liberty during detention and the health conditions they had to endure.

The AHRC has received reports from further sources that the security institutions in Manokwari and West Papua had earlier planned to undertake systematic efforts during 1-14 December 2011 to intentionally create a situation that would allow for the arrest of and criminal charges against protesters. According to the reports received this operation was planned to justify the ongoing stigmatization of indigenous Papuans with the view to scale up security operations. The AHRC urges an immediate investigation into these serious allegations to avoid repetition.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities listed below asking them to intervene in the case immediately to ensure that all allegations of institutional misconduct leading to wrongful deprivation of the victims liberty is investigated, that the victims are compensated and Mr. Bleskadit is released from his political imprisonment. All legal process must to be conducted in accordance with international norms.

Please be informed that the AHRC is sending letters on this case to to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

INDONESIA: Manokwari Court acquits four Papuan students but sentences one more student with rebellion

Name of victim: Jhon Raweyai, Penehas Serongan, Yance Sekeyab, Alex Duwiri, John Wilson Wader, Melki Bleskadit and Daniel Yenu
Names of alleged perpetrators: Police members, including guards of detention cell of Manokwari district police who arrested, detained and examined the victims, the prosecutor who examined this case
Date of incident: December 2010-September 2011
Place of incident: Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the conviction and sentencing of Jhon Raweyai at the Manokwari district court on 27 September 2011 and the ongoing imprisonment of Mr. Bleskadit for their involvement in a peaceful protest on 14 December 2010.

I know that on 14 December 2010, seven people were charged with rebellion after they had conducted a peaceful protest following a flag raising event. At the correctional facility, they were ill-treated and denied medical care for weeks resulting in serious health conditions.

Furthermore, I know that the Manokwari district court issued the verdict that two of the victims, Melki Bleskadit (also known as Melkianus Bleskadit) and Daniel Yenu, were guilty of acts of rebellion. On 18 August 2011, the verdict against Mr. Bleskadit was declared and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was convicted to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. I am also aware that the verdicts were declared based on flawed process. Meanwhile, the other accused are still undergoing the trial process.

I was informed that on 27 September 2011, the judges panel acquitted four of the five other Papuan students. According to the Manokwari court’s decision No: 84/Pid.B/2011/PN.Mkw, Mr Alex Duwiri and Mr John Wilson Wader were not guilty of acts of rebellion under article 106 jo, (in conjunction with) Article 55 and 56 of the criminal code. The Courts decision No. : 85/Pid.B/2011/PN.Mkw under the same charges declared Mr Panehas Serongon als. Panehas Sarongon and Mr Yance Sekenyap as not guilty. However, according to the latter decision, Mr Jhon Raweyai als. Joni was proven guilty for participating in the rebellion crime, and was sentenced to 9 (nine) months and 17 (seventeen) days imprisonment, most of which has by now already been served during detention.

I am aware that the conduct of any peaceful protest is protected by the Indonesian Constitution and international human rights law applicable to Indonesia. Laying criminal charges against the protesters based on the content of the opinion shared by them violates the victim’s right to freedom of expression in this case. The relevant articles in the Indonesian Criminal Code that originated from the Dutch colonial period have to be reviewed and their further application halted. I am also aware that several steps taken by the authorities have in the recent past aggravated tensions including the stigmatization many indigenous Papuans including activists as rebels. Many are charged and sentenced in flawed processes that lack impartiality and professional standards of judicial conduct, such as in the case of Mr. Bleskadit and Mr. Yenu. The perpetrators of such rights violations are hardly held accountable, which prolongs the instrumentalisation of courts for political interests. In the cases of Mr Bleskadit and Mr. Yenu, no information regarding accountability processes against the perpetrators are known.

I am also concerned that the court held four of the victims as not guilty after they had spent approximately nine months in prison without proper access to medical care. Indonesian law entitles the victims to a compensation for the deprivation of their liberty during detention and the health conditions they had to endure.

I was shocked to hear about further reports that alleged that security operation were planned by some authorities in order to artificially create conditions that would allow the police to charge activists in various places of West Papua as rebels in order to maintain stigmatization and with the view to scale up security operations. Since many of the steps taken by authorities in recent years seem to aggravate the conflict in West Papua, I am very concerned about the approach of Indonesian institutions in West Papua.

Yours sincerely,

—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
The President of Indonesia
Jl. Veteran No. 16
Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 3863777 / 3503088
Fax: +62 21 3442223

2. Head of Indonesian Police
Markas Besar Kepolisian Indonesia
Jl. Trunojoyo No. 3
Kebayoran Baru
South Jakarta 12110
INDONESIA
Tel.: +62 21 3848537 / 7260306 / 7218010
Fax: +62 21 7220669
Email: info@polri.go.id

3. The Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia
Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav. 6-7
Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 5253006, 5253889, 5264280
Fax: +62 21 5253095

4. Mr. Basrief Arief
The Attorney General of Indonesia
Jl. Sultan Hasanudin No. 1
Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta 12160
INDONESIA
Tel.: +62 21 7221337, 7397602.
Fax: + 62 21 7250213

5. Head of Papua Regional Police
Jl. Dr. Sam Ratulangi No. 8
Jayapura
INDONESIA
Tel.: + 62 967 531834

6. Head of Division of Profession and Security of Papua Regional Police
Jl. Dr. Sam Ratulangi No. 8
Jayapura
INDONESIA
Tel.: + 62 967 531834

7. Head of National Commission on Human Rights of Indonesia
Jalan Latuharhary No.4-B,
Jakarta 10310
INDONESIA
Tel.: +62 21 392 5227-30
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
E-mail: info@komnas.go.id

8. Chairman of the National Police Commission (Kompolnas)
Jl. Tirtayasa VII No. 20 Komplek PTIK Jakarta Selatan
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 739 2352
Fax: +62 21 739 2317

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Related articles
2

A history of violence at Indonesia mine/AJE

Rio Tinto has cosy ties with the Indonesian military, who have a long history of human rights abuses.
Freeport’s James Moffett has said ‘there is no alternative’ to the company’s reliance on the Indonesian military [EPA]


Investing in conflict-affected and high-risk areas is a growing concern for responsible businesses and investors. Companies based in developed countries often operate in lesser-developed foreign markets, where governance standards are lax, corruption is high and business practices are poor.

These pieces focus on one specific Anglo-Australian company and their American partner that jointly operate a mine in West Papua, one of the poorest provinces of Indonesia. The risks for the company include the potential to contribute to environmental and social damage in a foreign market. The risks for investors include financing a company that does not get its risk management right.

This is the third chapter of a four-part essay that examines how the Norwegian Pension Fund came to blacklist the mining giant Rio Tinto. The first part can be found here, and the second part can be found here.

In February 1995, Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto announced three deals that secured access into Grasberg, a massive gold and copper mine in the Indonesian province of West Papua.

First, Rio Tinto agreed to invest $500m of new capital in Arizona-based mining corporation Freeport for a 12 per cent stake in the US business. Second, Rio Tinto agreed to finance a $184m expansion of the Grasberg mine. In return, it received 40 per cent of post-1995 production revenue that exceeded certain output targets and, from 2021, a 40 per cent stake in all production. Finally, Rio Tinto would receive 40 per cent of all production from new excavations elsewhere within West Papua.

Rio Tinto was effectively doing business with Indonesian dictator Suharto, too.

In response, Freeport told shareholders that Rio Tinto would “contribute substantial operating and management expertise” through proportional representation on the board – as well as on various Grasberg operating and technical committees, from which the “policies established by the [board] will be implemented and operation will be conducted”.

Speaking of the “exceptional potential” of the deal, Rio Tinto’s then chief executive, Robert Wilson, agreed that“given [Rio Tinto’s] experience in other major open-pit copper ore bodies such as Bingham Canyon, Palabora and Escondida, we anticipate considerable mutual benefit”.

Rio Tinto obviously liked how Freeport-Indonesia did business, especially at Grasberg.

US government: Grasberg contravenes the Foreign Assistance Act

By October 1995, an independent US government agency had cancelled Freeport’s international political risk insurance. The insurer, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), specifically cited the Grasberg mine operation as contravening the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which required that “overseas investment projects do not pose unreasonable or major environmental hazards or cause the degradation of tropical forests”. Freeport was the first policyholder to be terminated by the OPIC for ethical violations, despite President Suharto and Freeport director Henry Kissinger heavily lobbying the US government to reinstate the policy. Following OPIC’s decision, the company did not disclose the environmental performance of the mine again until 2003 – it no longer had to.

For a brief time in 2000 and 2001, a particularly sympathetic Indonesian environment minister, Sonny Keraf, pursued numerous avenues to impose penalties and fines on Grasberg, including an unsuccessful attempt to invoke the criminal section of the 1997 Environmental Law to cease Freeport-Indonesia’s riverine method of tailings disposal, by which the corporation fed the mine’s waste product into nearby rivers. Under pressure for his pursuit of the part-Indonesian-owned Freeport, Keraf was replaced following the 2001 election.

As Suharto’s reign came to an end, an increasing number of West Papuans also began to campaign against the environmental and social impact of Grasberg. Papuan leaders brought the matter before the US Federal District Court in April 1996 and before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the US House of Representatives in May 1999. Many more attempts, including one to address shareholders at Rio Tinto’s 1998 annual general meeting in London, were foiled by Indonesian authorities.

Building on restrictions introduced in 1991, the US government banned arms transfers to Indonesia for widespread human rights violations in East Timor in 1999. Consequently, Freeport’s payments to the Indonesian military and security forces were more closely scrutinised. The Wall Street Journal found that, between 1991 and 1997, Freeport guaranteed more than $500m in loans so that Suharto’s family and allies could purchase a stake in the mine – a great portion of which was written off by Freeport in 2003.

An outspoken Australian academic, Lesley McCulloch, also found that the 1996 Timika riots adjacent to the Grasberg mine led to a spike in monetary demands by the Indonesian military, resulting in the funding of a $35m army base. Freeport and Rio Tinto refused to disclose details of the payments.

A history of violence

Then in August 2002, two US teachers and an Indonesian employee of Freeport-Indonesia were murdered at the Grasberg mine complex. Following one rebel’s admission that he was a business partner of the Indonesian military, several New York City pension (superannuation) funds formally requested that Freeport disclose the nature of its Indonesian “security” payments. The shareholders were concerned that such payments violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Although Freeport was not required to put the proposal to shareholders, the company did begin to disclose its security-related payments. Filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission since 2001 have confirmed annual payments reaching an average $5m each year for government-provided security of the Grasberg complex and its staff – and fluctuating annual costs reaching $12m for unarmed, in-house security costs. A spokesman for the company later told the Jakarta Post that these payments had been taking place since the 1970s.

Sporadic accounts began to surface – in the Sydney Morning Herald, Jakarta Post, and New York Times – quoting internal sources that confirmed that the Indonesian had masterminded the killings to extort monies from the Grasberg operators. “Not surprisingly, the Indonesian military has exonerated itself,” US Congressmen Joel Hefley and Tom Tancredo said in June 2003. “American investigative teams, including the FBI, have not been able to complete their investigations mainly due to the Indonesian military’s refusal to co-operate and tampering of evidence.”

Freeport remained steadfastly opposed to later demands by New York City pension fund investors to cease all payments to the Indonesians until they complied with official US investigations into the August 2002 murders. At the 2004 annual general meeting, president and chief executive Richard Adkerson advised shareholders: “The management and Board believe that the stockholder proposal mischaracterises the company’s relationships with Indonesian security institutions and suggests actions that would undermine the company’s relationship with the Indonesian government and the security of the company’s operations.”

Despite the ongoing human rights and corruption concerns in West Papua – including a report by the World Bank and a letter by US senators to then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the appointment of a special representative to Indonesia – after a vote by shareholders, the resolution was not passed.

On March 23, 2004, Rio Tinto announced it had sold its 11.9 per cent shareholding in Freeport. Rio Tinto made a $518m profit. Citing no environmental or social reasons, Rio Tinto’s then-chief executive Leigh Clifford reassured shareholders that “the sale of [Freeport] does not affect the terms of the joint venture nor the management of the Grasberg mine” and that through “our significant direct interest in Grasberg, we will continue to benefit from our relationship with Freeport”.

Rio Tinto remained committed to the mining of Grasberg and would continue overseeing its management through various operating and technical committees.

Sensational claims that illegal payments to individual soldiers, units, and policemen had been routinely made to secure the Grasberg complex and its staff came to light in 2005. A report by Global Witness revealed that an additional $10m had been paid directly to individual military and police commanders between 1998 and 2004. This included $247,000 between May 2001 and March 2003 to General Mahidin Simbolon, former head of the 1999 East Timor massacre, and monthly payments throughout 2003 to the police Mobile Brigade – a group cited by the US State Department as having “continued to commit numerous serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, and arbitrary detention”.

With the US arms trade embargo still in place, Rio Tinto had reassured the market that payments to the Indonesian military were “legally required and legitimate” only months before the news broke. Now Rio Tinto and Freeport-Indonesia came under even greater public pressure. At Rio Tinto’s next shareholder meeting, after several West Papuans refugees made statements to the board on Grasberg, shareholder activist Stephen Mayne suggested that “the most appropriate thing for Rio Tinto to do would be to exit”. After confirming that Rio Tinto’s contractual obligations would permit such a move, then-chairman Sir Rod Eddington informed shareholders that they “make a considerable effort to ensure that the best that Rio Tinto can offer to Freeport in the management of that venture is available to them”.

An Indonesian ministerial decree in 2007 demanded that the security of “vital national objects” – such as Grasberg – be handed over to the police within six months. Evidence obtained by world news service AFP suggests this is not happening. In a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Freeport disclosed additional direct payments of “less than” $1.6m in 2008 to 1,850 soldiers, despite the fact that 447 policemen make up the official number of personnel responsible for security at the Grasberg complex.

Unrepentant

The company’s 2008 Sustainable Development report confirms that Freeport-Indonesia makes contributions to “security institutions (including both police and military)”. Alarmingly, according to Amnesty International, as recently as 2008 there have been fundamental human rights violations such as the “torture, excessive use of force and unlawful killings by police and security forces” – reports that have subsequently been confirmed by the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders and the United Nations Committee against Torture.

“There is no alternative to our reliance on the Indonesian military and police,” Freeport chairman James Moffett said to the New York Times in 2005. “The need for this security, the support provided for such security, and the procedures governing such support, as well as decisions regarding our relationships with the Indonesian government and its security institutions, are ordinary business activities.”

Part 4 to follow next week.

This is an extract of a chapter from the book, Evolutions in Sustainable Investing: Strategies, Funds and Thought Leadership, to be published by Wiley in December 2011.

NAJ Taylor is a PhD candidate in the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland, and casual lecturer in the Faculty of Law and Management at La Trobe University.

Follow NAJ Taylor on Twitter: @najtaylordotcom

Related articles
2

Indonesia: Recent outbursts of violence underscore dire need for a rights-based approach to conflict resolution in Papua

http://www.fidh.org/Recent-outbursts-of-violence

Indonesia: Recent outbursts of violence underscore dire need for a rights-based approach to conflict resolution in Papua

 

Paris-Jakarta-Bangkok, 21 September 2011. The recent spike in violent incidents in Papua in July and August underscore the urgent need for Jakarta to re-assess its military approach to solve the situation of unrest in the region and to place the respect for human rights at the heart of conflict resolution policies and practices, said the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (Imparsial) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) today.

 

Kontras recorded at least ten violent clashes between 5 July to 3 August, 2011[1], involving members of the state security forces and local armed groups. Civilians were injured and killed in some of these clashes. Thirteen Papuans were arrested by the police on 31 August in Kampung Nafri, Abepura, for allegedly causing unrest during a religious ceremony. There were also allegations that these 13 individuals were involved in a shooting incident on 3 August, in which three civilians and one TNI soldier were killed. However, local rights groups pointed out that the police made the arrests without properly investigating and substantiating these allegations. These detainees were reportedly tortured while in police custody.

“Freedoms of expression, association and assembly are routinely violated in Papua, which seriously fuels tensions. Besides, gross human rights abuses, such as acts of torture, remain unaccounted for.” said Poengky Indarti, Executive Director of Imparsial.

“While the use of violence to achieve political and other goals is unacceptable, the heavy military presence and the military-centered approach by Jakarta to Papua’s demand for autonomy serve to sideline human rights and do not provide a viable and peaceful solution to the conflict,” said Souhayr Belhassen, FIDH President.

Another element of Jakarta’s security-centered approach is the strict restriction to access to Papua. As a result, peaceful activities of civil society groups and human rights actors operating in Papua are known to be under extensive surveillance by the Indonesian military. This form of intimidation goes against the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups or Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and oversteps the lawful limit of intelligence gathering. Internal documents of the Indonesian military recently obtained and publicized by the media revealed both the extent of this kind of surveillance and the military authorities’ mistrust towards peaceful civil society and human rights activities, which they perceive as a threat to national security.

“Monitoring human rights work is seen by the military as threatening to national security and this bodess ill for the safety of human rights defenders and other peaceful activists in Papua, as they could bear the brunt of harassment and physical intimidation by state security forces under the pretext of fighting separatism,” said Yap Swee Seng, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

Some of the activists and individuals named in the leaked military documents have already faced arrest, detention, and intimidation, such as independence activists Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni, who were both arrested and convicted for their role in organizing peaceful demonstrations during which the Morning Star flag, a banned symbol, was raised.

A recent report released by Imparsial estimates that there are more than 14,000 military personnel deployed to Papua. The report identifies the key features of such a military-centered approach by the central government, including the continuous military operations in Papua without adequate parliamentary oversight, deployment of a large number of non-organic troops to Papua, and the addition of new territorial command structure in the region.

In sum, accountability for human rights abuses perpetrated by state security forces is still lacking in Papua. In addition, in the few rare cases in which perpetrators were brought to court, they were either acquitted or convicted on lesser charges that do not reflect the gravity of their crimes, such as acts of torture.

The four organizations call on the Indonesian government to:

  • Instruct its military to immediately cease all unlawful surveillance activities in Papua and revise its current draft intelligence bill by incorporating recommendations by civil society and bringing it into line with the Indonesian Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code, as well as international human rights law;
  • Take steps to reduce the heavy presence of non-organic military personnel and their involvement in civil administration in Papua and seriously implement security sector reform;
  • Fully and credibly investigate all past and new allegations of human rights abuses, especially those perpetrated by state security forces, and promptly bring perpetrators to justice;
  • Strengthen civilian oversight and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of military policies, operations and budget; and
  • Respect the role of human rights defenders and ensure unfettered access to Papua by civil society groups and actors, including foreign and domestic journalists and independent human rights monitors.

[1] The documented violent incidents occurred in Kampong Kalome, Tingginambut district, Puncak Jaya (5 July and 12 July); Mulia, Puncak Jaya (13 July and 21 July); Timika, Mimika (30 July); Illga district, Puncak (30-31 July); Kampung Nafri, Abepura (1 August and 3 August); and Mulia, Puncak Jaya/Wamena (3 August). See documentation by KontraS: http://www.kontras.org/index.php?hal=siaran_pers&id=1339.

Related articles
0

Alleged OPM members may be charged with Nafri and Skyland incidents

(West Papua Media Note:  despite reams of evidence available to the contrary that indicated clearly that the Nafri attacks were the work of “unknown persons”, Indonesian police are still refusing to investigate the connections with Indonesian military operations.  The only credible way these trials can proceed is with the presence of international legal observers.  )
See the following Related articles:

Bintang Papua, 19 September 2011

Jayapura: Two Papuans who are allegedly mmbers of TPN/OPM and who are
facing charges in connection with the burning of a taxi and shootings
that occurred in Kampung Nafri as well as at Skyland and were arrested
on 31 August, are now at the stage of processing by the police force in
Jayapura. In order to obtain more documentation about the case, the
police have questioned two further witnesses. The results of these
investigations cannot yet been reveal.

The public relations officer of the police said that other witnesses
were likely to be summoned which may hopefully speed up the handling of
the case. These witnesses were being summoned as they may have seen
people who fled when a group of armed criminals opened fire on local people.

He said that one of the accused has been identified as PK who is alleged
to have been involved in the killing of the driver of the taxi that was
burnt and the other accused, EK was only allegedly involved in the
burning and killing of the taxi driver in Skyland.

‘It is hoped that the questioning of the witnesses will lead to the
identification of other suspects.,’ the official said.

The police say that they intend to continue their investigations and
hunt down other possible perpetrators in the case of the shootings in
Kampung Nafri.

Related articles
1

Report on wrongful arrest of 15 civilians n Wahno-Varia, W Papua

Report on wrongful arrest and torture of 15 civilians in Wahno-Vuria hill, Kotaraja, Jayapura town, Papua Province, 31 August 2011

Produced by: Investigation team comprising KomnasHAM Papua, a student or representative of Cendrawasih University Jayapura, and representatives
and members of the Baptist, Kingmi and Catholic churches

Published by: the Fellowship of Baptist Churches of Papua

September 2011

This is a TAPOL summary

The report is based on the results of an investigation by the Fellowship of Baptist Churches in Papua, including witness statements from the victims and their families, in an aim to publish the facts from the ground.

During July and August 2011, there have been a number of events affecting the security situation in Papua.   These include a number of mysterious murders for which the perpetrator(s) remain unknown, civilian deaths and injuries caused by security forces, repressive actions by security forces, clashes between the security forces and OPM/TPN, election unrest including demos and violence, an attack on the 5-7 July “Papua Peace Conference” at Cenderawasih University, a simultaneous murder at Skyline Jayapura, and a series of events accompanying and following on from the seminar in Oxford, England organized by the International Lawyers for West Papua.   A common feature seems to be that on several occasions the murders and other acts of violence occurred simultaneously across different locations. In most cases the perpetrators appear to remain unknown.

Background to the event on 31 August 2011

According to Biben Kogoya, Chair of RT 08 (RT is the smallest unit of neighbourhood governance), following a meeting of all RT/RW chairs last year, all sharp weapons kept in houses of the local population under the area of their jurisdiction should be collected and kept in the houses of the RT/RW chairs, which Biben Kogoya duly did.   He had heard shortly before the incident that there was going to be a sweeping.   He states that in the week leading up to the incident he had been trying to call the local police in Abepura to inform them of some new TNI members who had been hanging around the area each night between 25-29 August, providing alcohol and encouraging the young people to drink, and asking
them to point out the houses of people they were looking for, including Danny Kogoya, Panius Kogoya, Ekimar Kogoya, Etra Yanengga, and Gidi Wenda.

However, the police did not answer the phone or respond to his reports as chair of RT 08.  On 29 August, Biben had decided to sort this out, but he did not get the chance to do so as he was then arrested.

The events of 31 August 2011:

At 05:00-06:00 on 31 August 2011 a combined unit of 115 members of the army and police carried out sweeping and a siege of 4 houses in the Wahno hill area, RT 08 in Kotaraja Luar, Jayapura.  One of the houses targeted was that of Biben Kogoya (Chair of RT 08). The combined forces arrived in 6 Avanza cars and a police truck, with two of the units equipped with black batons.   They parked 500 meters from the houses in question and placed the area in question under siege, firing a volley of shots towards the houses.

A total of 15 people, including Biben Kogoya, were beaten, tortured, interrogated and exhorted to confess to having committed the Skyline and Nafri murders. Victims were beaten with rifle butts, kicked, slapped, and forced to lie on the ground for a number of hours.   Biben Kogoya was particularly singled out for beatings, and was confronted with an apparently unearthed bullet and some documents, and told to confess to owning these items or be murdered and buried. He was then forced to dig a hole whilst surrounded by security forces who had their guns aimed at him.   He was frightened and thought that he was digging his own grave, but managed to escape into the open.   The combined unit also brought a photograph of the soldier who was murdered on Jalan Baru, Camp Wolker (23/08/11) and asked Biben Kogoya if he had killed him.   The photo was put inside his family photo album and taken out of the family room –  he said he had never put that photograph of the soldier in the photo album.

Then the soldiers said it was Kogoya who killed him, this is the proof, look, it’s in his album. Meanwhile, Ekimar Kogoya was tortured until, unable to withstand the pain any longer, he confessed to the murders.   When pushed to name an accomplice he then named Panius Kogoya.

The houses were ransacked and a number of items such as handphones, money, shoes, a watch, wallets and a bank card were seized.

Throughout the experience, the victims were subjected to degrading treatment, being called variously “dog, pig, cow, animals, murderers, cannibals.” They were also stigmatized as OPM members.

As Biben Kogoya escaped from digging the hole/grave, the Vicar Metius Kogoya arrived, shortly followed by the arrival of the Head of Abepura Police and the provincial Head of Police (Kapolda).  According to the witness statement of the Vicar, the leaders said to their staff “don’t hit them anymore, what’s happened here is already enough.”

Between 12 and 13:00 on 31 August the 15 people were brought to the Polresta.  They were left in the locked truck for some time in the full sun, finding it hard to breath and hurting from their wounds.  They complained, and the truck was moved to the shade.  Then they were taken one by one to sign a notice, without having a lawyer present.  They were each photographed, then sat in front of the door of the investigation unit and interrogated. They were put back in the truck around 23:00-24:00 to sleep except Ekimar and Panius who were detained separately.   They reportedly waited for hours in the truck without food or drink until 06:00 on 1 September. 3 of them became ill and were laid on the floor of the truck.  One policeman helped us, giving us a litre of water (between 13 of us) and a packet of cigarettes.  When they woke in the morning they were not allowed to go to the toilet to urinate or defecate but were told to go to the toilet in the open yard of the police station.

On 1 September at 11:40, the leaders of the Baptist church and human rights activists, accompanied by Matius Murib arrived to visit the detainees, who were sitting in front of the investigation unit of the police station, with the others lying asleep as they had malaria.  13 detainees were released and were taken home at 15:00, arriving at their house at 17:00.  Ekimar and Panius remained in custody.

On 2 September, the 13 victims who had been sent home were taken to the hospital for a medical check up to be given the OK.  It turned out three of them were sick with malaria, so were not given the all clear.  They were:

1. Uwne Kogoya (23) malaria tertian +4

2. Yawenus Kogoya (21) malaria tropika +2

3. Nusman Kogoya (19) high leukosits.

On 3 September the Vicar was called by the police station to come and collect the arrest and detention notices for Panius Kogoya and Ekimar Kogoya, who were both charged with murder and/or violence in a public place against a person or object.

Condition of the victims

Following the incident, the victims suffered internal bruising and were traumatized. They were not able to carry out normal activities or travel very far.  Biben Kogoya’s ability to remember, hear and see properly was reportedly impaired, and his control over his emotions was abnormal.  On 6 September Uwen Wenda was reportedly still in Abepura hospital with malaria tropika and tersiana.

Key recommendations

· Intelligence should be good, accurate and accountable.

· Those currently imprisoned should be released as they are not guilty for the Nafri and Skyline cases.

· The central and Papuan provincial governments should sit down together and discuss the security situation across Papua, which is increasingly unstable.

· The Head of Jayapura Police must be accountable for the arrest and torture of 15 civilians on 31 August, which took place without due legal process.

· Those police and soldiers involved should be punished in accordance with the law.

· The torture, humiliation and stigmatization which happened during the arrests are considered to be grave human rights violations (pelanggaran HAM yang berat).

· The police are responsible for reparations for both material damage and for the psychological recovery of the victims.

· A formal and public apology is needed from the Indonesian police to the victims and their families within ten days.

Related articles
1

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑