Tag: Rebellion/Subversion charges

Komnas HAM on Lack of commitment to solve human rights issues in Papua

JUBI, 8 April 2011 

The deputy chairman of the Papuan branch of Komnas HAM, the National Human Rights Commission, Mathius Murib, has accused the regional authorities of lack of commitment to solve human rights violations in West Papua.

He said that the local government had failed to enact a regional regulation known as Perda regarding human rights .

Komnas HAM has already prepared the draft of a Perda but the provincial governor  and the provincial legislative assembly  have as yet failed to enact it as a regulation.

He cited as examples of the government’s lack of commitment  the fact that the Wasior case in 2001 and the Wamena case in 2003 were still unresolved although Komnas HAM had carried out pro justicia investigations of these cases and had reached the conclusion that both were cases of gross human rights violations. However, the attorney-general’s office had a different opinion about the cases.

Murib made three recommendations that the victims might consider in order to bring such cases to a resolution. They could find ways to use legal mechanisms  within the Indonesian judiciary, adding that it might be possible to bring these cases before an international mechanism.

A second possibility was for the provincial government to enact the Perda regulation as drafted by Komnas HAM.

The third possibility was for Komnas HAM to become a regional human rights commission under the framework of the special autonomy law within the powers of authority of the governor of the province of Papua.

Related Articles
2

Statement on Indonesia Intelligence Bill Drafting

Advocacy Coalition on Indonesia Intelligence Bill Joint Statement
http://idsps.org/english-news/pers-release/advocacy-coalition-on-indonesia-intelligence-bill-joint-statement-201104035746/ 

Indonesian parliament with the government plans to ratify the State Intelligence Bill draft to become the Law of Intelligence in 2011. Through a series of discussions that have been done by the parliament and government, Intelligence draft has undergone several changes.

From the beginning we give full support to the parliament and the government’s plan which will regulate intelligence institution through the establishment of the Intelligence Bill. However, discussion and ratification of the Intelligence Bill should become integral part of intelligence reform. In that context, the basic principles of democratic state should have been an inherent part of the Intelligence Bill.

We assessed that the draft of State Intelligence Bill that is being discussed parliament is not fully accommodate the principles of democratic countries and it raises serious issues against the values of democratic life of the country itself, including:

1. Intelligence definition
Article 1 point (2) states intelligence as a state government agency. Basically, the intelligence agencies are not government agencies but the instrument of the state. The definition has put intelligence position as tool of the ruler that works for the interests of rulers and not the instrument of the state which work for the benefit of its people. It’s very concerning since it is very likely intelligence can be used to spy on people in the interest of the ruler alone and not to the real enemy as Indonesia had experienced in the New Order era.

2. Intercept
The existence of refusal of court authorization requirement before conducting interception as mentioned in the explanation of Article 31 is not only potentially threaten citizens’ rights but also vulnerable to abuse (abuse of power) for the sake of economic and political power. Intelligence do need the authority to conduct tapping/interception, however, it must be done through a standardized and rigid mechanism and must have a clear prerequisite, such as the importance of getting court approval for conducting interception.

Referring to the decisions of the Constitutional Court No. 006/PPU-1/2003; No. 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006; No. 5/PUU-VIII/2010, the Court believes it is necessary to establish specific regulation about interception on the level of State Law/Bill to prevent the possibility of abuse of authority for wiretapping and recording. Thus it is only appropriate that the discussion of the Intelligence bill conducted in parallel with the discussion of the bill on Interception in the interest of coordinating arrangements for intelligence ability to intercepts.

3. Secret Intelligence Information
Setting intelligence secret referred in Article 24 jo Article 39 of the Intelligence Bill draft still raises multiple interpretations and are vague. The multiple interpretations are threatening the freedom of information, freedom of the press and democracy itself.

4. Arrest (List of Revision given by Government)
Granting authority for the intelligence to arrest threatens human rights and damage criminal justice system mechanism. To grant the authority is tantamount to legalizing kidnapping using Intelligence Bill considering intelligence work is closed/covert and secret. It is important to remember that the state intelligence agency is part of the non-judicial agencies that are not included as part of law enforcement officers, such as police and prosecutors, therefore granting authority to arrest is wrong and can not be justified. In a country that respect rule of law, authority to arrest and detain is only obtained by law enforcement officials.

5. State Intelligence Coordinating Institution (Lembaga Koordinasi Intelijen Negara – LKIN)
State Intelligence Coordinating Institution (LKIN) as the new institution provided by this bill will be the agency that replaces the position of the State Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Negara – BIN) that has very broad authorityy. In that case, LKIN should not have the operational authority and functions, such as making communication interception, checking flow of funds, and such. Implementation of operational functions should be handed over to existing intelligence agencies which have operational authority.

6. Oversight
Oversight mechanism in the National Intelligence Bill draft is only made in the form of parliamentary oversight by the House of Representatives held by the completeness of the House of Representatives in charge of intelligence oversight. There are no regulations governing internal controls, executive oversight, and legal supervision. At this point, the oversight conducted by the parliament should be performed by a separate intelligence committees within the parliament, namely by forming a new special commission overseeing the intelligence.

7. Organization and Role
From an organizational standpoint, the Bill draft did not adopt the State Intelligence structural differentiation and specialization of functions. State Intelligence Bill draft does not strictly divide the working area of foreign intelligence, domestic intelligence, military intelligence, and law enforcement intelligence.

8. Structure and Position
State Intelligence Bill draft also has not been able to separate accountability between the structures that is responsible for policy making with the structure responsible for operational in implementation of the policy. Ideally all security actors who serve as executors of the policy are under or become part of ministries/ministerial-level the structure, intelligence agencies are no exception.

9. Personnel and Recruitment
Associated with members of the intelligence, the State Intelligence Bill regulates vaguely of intelligence personnel. It is not regulated whether recruitment mechanism is either open or closed.

10. Code of Conduct and Prohibition
In addition, the State Intelligence Bill draft does not contain regulation or codes of ethic for intelligence that includes obligations, rights and restrictions for all activities and aspects of intelligence.

11. Making Intelligence a Civil Institution
This Bill draft has not incorporated the agenda of making intelligence as civil institution. Ideally in the era of democracy, all intelligence agencies are civilian and not active military, except for military intelligence. Until now, the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) is still filled by active military personnel despite the head of intelligence is civilian.

12. Rights of victims
State Intelligence Bill draft has not included the rights of victims, particularly those related to complaints of victims if there are intelligence actions that are deviate and caused serious problems for the implementation of the rights of people.

We urge the parliament and the Indonesian government not to rush in passing the State Intelligence Bill and provide space for the community to provide input and views on the efforts to improve the State Intelligence Bill draft, as provided in Law No. 10 Year 2004 on Procedures for Making Laws and Regulations.

We fully appreciate members of Parliament who rejected the plan on granting intelligence the authority to arrest in the Intelligence Bill. Ideally the formulation of the Intelligence Bill is to maintain a balance between the need for countries to guarantee and protect the freedom of civil society and human rights on one hand; and to guard and protect national security on the other.

Jakarta, March 28, 2011
Advocacy Coalition on Indonesia Intelligence Bill

Institutions:
Imparsial, Kontras, IDSPS, Elsam, the Ridep Institute, Lesperssi, Setara Institute, LBH Masyarakat, ICW, YLBHI, LBH Jakarta, HRWG, Praxis, Infid, Yayasan SET, KRHN, Leip, Ikohi, Foker Papua, PSHK, MAPI, dan Media Link

Individual:
Bambang Widodo Umar

http://idsps.org/english-news/pers-release/advocacy-coalition-on-indonesia-intelligence-bill-joint-statement-201104035746/

We hope international network can help monitor and push Indonesian government to create Intelligence Bill that is accountable and respect the value of democracy.

We welcome every feedback and support from your organization around the world.

Have a nice day,

—
Regards,
—
Mufti Makaarim al-Ahlaq
Executive Director
Institute for Defense Security and Peace Studies

Related Articles
0

Priest says OTSUS is accelerating Papuan extermination

(WestPapuaMedia note: we are aware of the allegations of mysterious killings in 2010, however the reports given are not containing enough information to make any detailed report).
JUBI, 6 April 2011 

OTSUS IS ACCELERATING  PAPUAN EXTERMINATION

A priest in Nabire has described the special autonomy law, known as OTSUS, as being a move by the Indonesian government that was intended to accelerate the extermination of the indigenous Papuan people.

The Rev. Daud Auwe said that ‘the intention  is clear from the systematic and violent killings which have taken place up to now.’  He mentioned in particular the case of the Rev. Kindeman Gire in Puncak Jaya, and the shooting of Melkias Agapa and Abetnego Keiya in Nabire. He was speaking at a demonstration of several hundred people outside the office of the Nabire  provincial legislative assembly.

There was also the case of the mysterious killing of ten people in Nabire [no time mentioned] and the killings of 1,435 people  that occurred during the four years from 2006 to 2010.

Another speaker, Yones Douw spoke about the culture of dependency and the destruction of the people’s economy, the appalling condition of education and healthcare facilities for Papuan people, all of which were the result of OTSUS. ‘294 people in Dogiyai died of diarrhoea in 2008, 42 people died of malaria and 41 people died of starvation in the district of Nduga.’

Other factors were the destruction of Papuan culture, the uncontrolled increase in the number of inhabitants that has been occurring annually, all of which has led to a lack of protection for indigenous Papuan people.

Yones also condemned the government’s UP4B programme which is now being promoted by the central government, which he described as a public cover-up for the failures of OTSUS. ‘While there is no legal basis for the UP4B programme, the OTSUS law which is within the legal framework has not been properly implemented by the government.’

Related Articles
6

Charges against two Papuan defendants at variance with other court documents; also, statement by Warinussy

JUBI, 31 March 2011 

The formal indictment presented in court against Mecky Bleskadit and Dance Yenu who are facing the charge of unfurling the 14-star flag  in Manokwari last December is at variance with the verbatim report submitted to the court by the police.

A member of the legal team of the defendants, Simon Richard Banundi, said that the charge sheet  does not reflect the contents of the interrogation report which provides a chronological account of the police arrest and they intend to make a formal complaint about this when they submit their demurer (eksepsi) at the next hearing of the case on 5 April.

Banundi said that the two defendants were facing charges under Article 106  of the criminal code for makar and they are also accused of being separatists. The charge sheet also makes reference to Articles 107 and 110 for alleged provocation of a large number of people. After the indictment was read out, the hearing was adjourned and will continue on 5 April.

Yan Christian  Warinussy, co-ordinator of the defence team, later told the press that  when submitting their demurer, he would deal at length with the continuance in force of the makar article and the other articles used in the charge sheet. These articles are being used to silence Papuan activists whenever they give expression to their aspirations and can even result in their ending up behind bars.

The two defendants along with five others were involved in an incident when they unfurled the 14-star flag to commemorate the anniversary of the declaration of West Melanesian independence on 14 December 2010 in Manokwari, West Papua.

————–

In a statement issued on the following day, the co-ordinator the defence team, Yan Christian Warinussy said that even though articles 102, 106, 108 and 110 can be described as being ‘karet’ (highly flexible), they have been used since the days of President Sukarno and up to the present era of reformasi. to silence people holding  views contradictory to those in power and are still being used by elements within the judiciary and including the police, against people calling for democracy in the Land of Papua as well as in Maluku and Aceh.

He said that the activities that had been undertaken by the two defendants last December had led to charges of makar whereas what they had done should not be seen as makar or separatism. Makar should be seen as an act involving armed violence  or violence. Can the expression of people’s aspirations  such as unfurling the 14-star flag or the Morning Star flag (kejora), or singing the song, Hai Tanahku Papua be branded as makar or separatist?

The government should stop using these articles and there should be a judicial review and an end should be put to using these articles to silence democratic actions in the Land of Papua.

A movement must be launched to call for a judicial review of the makar article must secure the support of all components of society as well as the local governments of Papua and West Papua.

Related Articles
0

Call for judicial review of makar article

JUBI, 31March 2011 

‘Makar’ should be tested before Constitutional Court

Yan Christian Warinussy, the executive director of LP3BH, the Instituteof Research, Analysis and Development for Legal Aid, has called on the Dewan Adat Papua, the Papuan Customary Council, to submit the ‘makar‘ -subversion – article in the Indonesian Criminal Code/KUHP to the Constitutional Court for a judicial review.

‘I call on DAP together with the Papuan people to seek a judicial review of the makar article before the Constitutional Court because it  is no longer appropriate for such a law to remain in force in a democratic country like Indonesia. ‘Other democratic states around the world don’t have such a law,’ he said, ‘because it is so out-of-date.’

He said that this should be recognised by all components of Papuan society, including DAP and should be tested by a judicial review.’

If this article continues to remain in force, the police will be able to make use of it to arrest Papuan activists when they give expression to their political aspirations to the government. This includes rejecting the special autonomy law and calling for dialogue as the way to resolve the Papuan issue and various other problems in Papua.’

This article can also be used by prosecutors and judges to convict Papuan civilians and activists when raising problems that they confront. ‘In my opinion, this article will continue to be used  to round up and imprison indigenous Papuans whenever they give voice to their aspirations.

He said that the police continue to use articles 106 and 107 of the criminal code on subversion and incitement to detain Papuan activists whenever they raise any problems in Papua, he said.

1

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑