Tag: Prosecutor

Witness testimonies at Papuan treason trial

The sixth hearing of the trial of Forkorus Yaboisembet and his four colleagues took place on 21 February at which seven witnesses for the prosecution were called to give evidence. According to the executive-director of the LB3PH, Yan Christian Warinussy, six of the seven of the witnesses were members of the police force who  had been involved in the attack against the Third Papuan Peace Conference (KRP-III) on the third day of the event, 19 October 2011.Six of these witnesses were unable to answer questions from the chief prosecutor regarding the declaration that was allegedly read out at the end of the  conference nor could they say whether the five defendants had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to set up the Federal Republic of West Papua.One of the witnesses who had been summoned was Drs Alfons Rumbekwan, a member of the Majelis Rakyat Papua. Speaking for the defence team, Olga Helena  Hamadi said that this person should not testify at the trial because the majelis of which he is a member is the cultural body of the indigenous Papuan people. Since the trial was related to the political aspirations of the Papuan people, his appearance might cause a conflict between the MRP and the Papuan people. It was agreed that Drs Rumbekwan  would not be called to give testimony.

According to a lengthy report of the hearing in Bintang Papua, the police witnesses appeared not to know the defendants and were unaware of the declaration by Forkorus calling for the re-establishment of the Federal Republic of West Papua.

According to Bintang Papua, for example, the first witness, Lambertus Limbong Sattu, a member of the Jayapura City police force who reportedly told the hearing that he did not know the identity of one of the accused, Agustinus Sananay Kraar, when he pulled him into the police vehicle but only knew his name after they reached police headquarters. He told the court that he had not seen the document proclaiming the establishment of the Federal Republic of West Papua but confirmed that there was a banner  on which were inscribed with the words: ‘Let Us Affirm the Basic Rights of the Papuan Indigenous People, Today and in the Future’.

The second witness, Aamet Mahu told the court that he was in the vicinity of the venue of the KRP-III  on 19 October 2011 and was there on orders to handle security of the conference.

The defence team of the five defendants said that all the testimony given on that day in court was in way related to the charges in the indictment.

Related articles
0

Treason Trials: Panel of judges reject demurrer by defendants

14 February 2012[Abridged in translation by TAPOL]

At the fourth hearing of the trial of Forkorus Yaboisembut and his colleagues which was held on 13 February, the panel of judges chaired by Jack Jacobus Octavianus SH announced that they could not accept the demurrer of the defendants which was submitted on  30 January, arguing that it was not in conformity with the law.

But the panel of judges failed to take into consideration the opening statement of the defendants which analysed the social, political and economic circumstances currently prevailing or the roots of the conflict in the Land of Papua at this time.

It was clear that the judges  only take into consideration  the thoughts and actions of the security forces such as the army, the police and the prosecutor and are only seeking those aspects of the law  which  restrict the right to freedom of expression of the majority of the Papuan people.

The defendants’ team of lawyers  went on to say that  the judges hearing the case are under pressure from forces outside the court of law as is clear from the fact that the head of the  Prosecutor’s Office along with the military commander of the Cenderawasih military command, the chief of police in  Papua and the prosecutor’s office  were approached prior to the hearing on 8 February and prior to the hearing held yesterday.

Our impression is, they said, that the powers that be in Indonesia  are very keenly following every aspect of the trial,  as is evident from the  extra tight security arrangements; the fact that access for the press to attend the trial  is very much restricted  while members of the public are not being allowed to enter the courtroom because it is packed with intelligence agents and members of various elements of the army and the police who are busy taking photographs and recording everything happening from very corner of the courtroom.

Forkorus, speaking on behalf of all the defendants, stood up and challenged the judges, saying that the judges will not be able to prevent him as the president of the NRFPB, the Federal Government of West Papua from reading out their rejection, a copy of which was then handed to the panel of judges

Responding to the statement of the defendants, Yan Christian Warinussy, a member of their legal team, said that the panel of judges should not at the forthcoming hearing try to restrict the defendants from expressing their views but should use those elements in the Criminal Code by simply noting the reports of the interrogations of the defendants (BAP).

The judges decision rejecting the defendants demurrer also called forth a strong statement from Yan Christian Warinussy who said that he did not agree with the viewpoint of the judges which only reflects the difference of opinion between the judges and the prosecutors and the legal team of the defendants, and he went on to say that it was wrong to say that their demurrer is not based on the law.

The team of lawyers also said that  the trial should be accessible to the international community and members of the diplomat corps in Jakarta so that they are able to follow developments in the trial.

The panel of judges then announced that the next hearing would take place on Friday, 17 February, when witnesses for the prosecution would be heard, most of whom are members of the police force which was involved in the attcks against the defendants and the mass of people, following the closure of the Papuan Peoples Conference (KRP III) on19 October last year.

Related articles
0

AHRC: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-041-2011

15 September 2011

[RE: AHRC-UAC-117-2011: Police ill-treats peaceful protesters and forces rebellion charges in a flawed process]
———————————————————————
INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

ISSUES: Freedom of expression; right to fair trial
———————————————————————

Dear friends,

The Manokwari district court in West Papua has sentenced two peaceful activists to seven and a half months and two years imprisonment respectively. The trial was characterised by a series of violations of the Indonesian criminal procedure and appeared to be politicised and biased. The victims had participated in a peaceful protest in December 2010. The Manokwari Court ignored several basic rights of the accused and the verdict was given despite the lack of sufficient evidence. Five more victims are still undergoing their trial process.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 14 December 2010, seven persons were charged with rebellion after they 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. The AHRC issued this urgent appeal regarding their case.

The AHRC has now received information from LP3BH, a local legal aid group in Manokwari that the judges panel led by Cita Savitri, issued the verdict that two of the peaceful protesters, Melki Bleskadit (also known as Melkianus Bleskadit) and Daniel Yenu, were guilty of acts of rebellion, while the other accused are still undergoing the trial process. (photos:Daniel Yenu (left) and Melki Bleskadit (right) in court, source:LP3BH)

On 18 August 2011, the verdict against Mr. Bleskadit was declared and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The AHRC also learned that the verdicts were declared based on flawed testimonies. At the trial of both victims, no witnesses to the alleged crime were presented and the judges declared a testimony from a person who had not seen, heard or experienced the incident as sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. According to article 1.26 and 1.27 of the Indonesian criminal procedure law (Law 8/1981) such a person is not permitted to be a witness in a trial. Responding to the two year sentence, the public prosecutor, Mudeng Sumaila submitted an appeal, demanding a higher sentence of five years. (photo: public prosecutor at Yenu’s trial source:LP3BH)

On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was convicted to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. At Mr. Yenu’s trial, the judge also convicted the suspect in a trial based on flawed procedure. For example, according to the victim’s lawyer the prosecutor successfully present fabricated evidence such as a megaphone that was not actually used by Mr. Yenu. On 16 August 2011, the judge forced Mr. Yenu to appear before the court trial session without access to his lawyer.

On 19 August 2011, the judges refused the request of Mr. Yenu’s legal counsel to submit the plea to the court, although the Indonesia’s criminal code in article 182.1b entitles the suspect to submit such a plea.

The AHRC is very concerned that local authorities in West Papua frequently apply rebellion charges to peaceful Papuan activists and sentence them in flawed processes that lack proper evidence. The Police, prosecution and judges have thus shown serious disregard for the basic criminal procedure standards and fundamental principles of rule of law. The verdict in this case appears to be quite blatantly fabricated. The AHRC deplores the dysfunction and apparent politicisation of courts in West Papua as this leaves people without access to the law-based and impartial justice mechanisms, they are entitled to. (photo: judges at Yenu’s trial, source:LP3BH)

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please join us in writing to the authorities listed below, asking them to thoroughly review and examine the trial process against Mr. Bleskadit and. Mr. Yenu and to review the criminal code application against the peaceful expression of opinion.

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

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

Name of victim: Melki Bleskadit, Daniel Yenu
Names of alleged perpetrators: The examining judges, Cita Savitri, I Gusti Ngurah Taruna W and Helmin Somalay
Date of incident: August 2011
Place of incident: Manokwari District Court

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the verdict against two Papuan activists, who were sentenced to imprisonment for conducting a peaceful protest in December 2010.

I know that on 14 December 2010, seven persons were charged with rebellion after they 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.

I have receive information that the judges panel led by Cita Savitri, declared the verdict that two of the peaceful protesters, Melki Bleskadit and Daniel Yenu, were guilty for acts of rebellion, while the other five victims are still undergoing their trial process.

On 18 August 2011, the verdict against Mr. Bleskadit was declared and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The AHRC also learned that the verdicts were declared based on flawed testimonies. At the trial of both victims, no witnesses of the alleged crime were presented and the judges declared a testimony from a person who had not seen, heard or experienced the incident as sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. According to article 1.26 and 1.27 of the Indonesian criminal procedure law (Law 8/1981) such a person is not permitted as a witness in trials. Responding to the two year sentence, the public prosecutor, Mudeng Sumaila submitted an appeal, demanding a higher sentence of five years.

On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was convicted to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. At Mr. Yenu’s trial, the judge also convicted the suspect in a trial based on flawed procedure. For example, according to the victim’s lawyer the prosecutor successfully present fabricated evidence such as a megaphone that was not actually used by Mr. Yenu. On 16 August 2011, the judge forced Mr. Yenu to appear before the court trial session without access to his lawyer.

I learned that on 19 August 2011, the judges refused the request of Mr. Yenu’s legal counsel to submit the plea to the court, although the Indonesia’s criminal code in article 182.1b entitles the suspect to submit a plea to the court.

I am very disturbed to hear that local authorities in West Papua frequently apply rebellion charges to peaceful Papuan activists and sentence them in flawed processes that lack proper evidence. The police, prosecution and judges have thus shown serious disregard for the basic criminal procedure standards and fundamental principles of rule of law in this case. The verdict appears to be fabricated and I am very concerned about the impartiality of the local courts and their disregard for Indonesian criminal procedure.

Therefore, I urge you to review and examine the trial process of both victims. The authorities concerned should look into the victim’s allegations of procedural failures in the local institutions and the ongoing lack of intervention – as far as I am aware – following the victims earlier complaints. The principle of fair trial as required by international and national law must be applied in the appeal’s process in the case of Mr. Bleskadit, Mr. Yenu and the ongoing trials of the other five accused.

Yours sincerely,

—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

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

2. Head of National Commission on Human Rights of Indonesia
Jalan Latuharhary No.4-B,
Jakarta 10310
Indonesia
Phone: +62 21 392 5227-30
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
Email : info@komnas.go.id

3. Office of The Anti Judicial Mafia Task Force (Satgas)
PO Box 9949
Jakarta 10 000
INDONESIA
Contact on website: http://www.satgas-pmh.go.id/?q=node/157

4. Chief Justice of the Republic of Indonesia
Mahkamah Agung
Jalan Medan Merdeka Utara No.9-13, Jakarta 10110
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 21 3843557 -3453348
Fax: +62 21 383541

5. Chairman of Judicial Commission
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia
Jl. Kramat Raya No. 57, Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 21 3905455;
Fax: +62 21 3905455;
Email: kyri@komisiyudisial.go.id

6. Head of Manokwari District Court
Jl. Merdeka No. 69
Nabire, Jayapura 98815
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 984 21007
Fax: +62 984 24087

7. Head of Jayapura High Court
Jl. Tanjung Ria No. 98. Base “G”
Jayapura 99117
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 967 541045, 541443, 541248
Fax: +62 967 541045

Yours sincerely,

Thank you.

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

 

 

 

Related articles
4

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑