Tag: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Statement from 5 Makar accused at KP3 treason trial

STATEMENT BY FIVE PAPUANS WHO WENT ON TRIAL IN JAYAPURA ON 30 JANUARY 2011[This hand-written statement is signed by the five Papuans who went on trial in Jayapura on 30 January 2012, and is translated in full by
Carmel Budiardjo, TAPOL]

Fully understanding and conscious of our basic human rights as Papuans of the negroid race, part of the Melanesian race who live in the land of the country of West Papua, inheritors from our ancestors, we herewith firmly declare  that WE FIRMLY REJECT THE TREASON TRIAL AND OTHER SUCH TRIALS that has been mounted against the five of us, and we speak on behalf our colleagues and the entire nation of the Papuan people of the Nation of West Papua.

We call for an understanding of this declaration, a declaration of independence, in accordance with the principles of PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, a law which should be lawfully accepted. And in this case, this declaration will bring us substantial  happiness if it gains the recognition of the international community.

In order to gain substantial and dignified recognition from the international community, we have requested our international team of lawyers to  notify and register  our legal status along with the question of the annexation of the TERRITORY OF THE STATE OF WEST PAPUA at the International Court, with the Secretary-General  of the United Nations, Amnesty International and all member states of the United Nations, as well as other competent authorities.

We herewith categorically state that we are not prepared to make any statements or answer any questions that are based on the laws and accusations of treason by  the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, during the current trial for treason. It is very clear indeed that this is a matter between two nations and two states, that is to say, between the Papuan nation and the Indonesian nation, between the Federal State of West Papua  and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.

The following are the reasons for our rejection of the trial for treason or any such trial:

[NB: The copy of the statement which we have received jumps at this point from page 2 to page 4 which suggests that the copy we have is incomplete.]

1.    Our struggle and the struggle of those who have gone before us and the nation of West Papua  and all members of the Papuan people up to the present day is a struggle for the restoration of independence and sovereignty of the Papuan Nation as one of our most basic political rights.

2.    Bearing in mind that the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia annexed and continues to annex, the people and nation of the Papuan people since the TRIKORA command which was proclaimed by the former president of Indonesia, President Sukarno on 19 December 1961 in the city of Jogyakarta and which was followed up by  the Indonesian military, from 1962 to the present day, by a variety of measures aimed at preserving the annexation.

3.    Our struggle is not aimed as damaging or destroying any country in the world.

4.    We do not intend to damage or destroy the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.

5.    We feel that our dignity has been defiled, that our basic political  rights have been violated in our country, West Papua, which we inherited from our ancestors.

6.    No one, for whatever reason, has the right to make accusations against us or to convict us in a treason trial or any such trial. This is because we have become the subjects of our own laws  as citizens of the nation and state of the Federal Republic of West Papua.

7.    Based on the values of basic human rights, of democracy and the following universal laws:

a. The  first article in the Preamble to the1945 Constitution  of the Republic of Indonesia.
b. Article15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations adopted on 10 December, 1948.
c. Article 1, para 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted as UN Resolution 2200 (xxi) which has been in force since 23 March 1976,.
d. The Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in UN Resolution 1514 (xv) on 14 December 1960.
e. The basic principles of decolonisation , namely possidetis juris and the legal succession of the state to the colonial territories  of the  Dutch East Indies (Dutch Papua) since 19 October 1961.
f. ILO Convention No. 169, 1989 on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People.
g. The UN Declaration on the basic rights of indigenous peoples of 13 September 2007.
h. The Papuan Independence Manifesto of 19 October 1961 adopted by the Papuan National Committee.
i.  Stipulations adopted by the Grand Congress (MUBES) of the Papuan people in 2000.
j. The Eleven Recommendations of the Second  Papuan Peoples’ Congress and Indigenous Papuan People  in 2010.
k. The decisions of the Second Papuan Peoples Congress in 2000.
l.  The decisions of the Third Papuan Peoples Congress of 2011.

8.    The Statement by the Indigenous Papuan People and the Papuan people is a truth based on analytical and practical categories. The analytical category means that the indigenous P apuan people are the Papuan nation, a negroid race of the Melanesian race, located in the South Pacific. Whereas the practical category is a political statement which was enunciated in the Manifesto of Papuan Independence of the Papuan National Committee on 19 October 1961 in Hollandia, the State of West Papua.

9.     We democratically restored the independence and sovereignty of the Papuan people on 19 October 2011, at the Third Papuan Peoples  Congress with the establishment of the Federal Republic of West Papua  which was announced by the DECLARATION OF THE PAPUAN NATION IN THE STATE OF WEST PAPUA.

10.    The government of the Republic of Indonesia and the governments of all other members of the United Nations, should without discrimination recognise and respect the democratic processes of the Papuan people at the Third Papuan Peoples Congress on 19 October 2011 in the form of the Declaration of the West Papuan Nation and State.

11.     The application of the treason law against the Papuan people must be categorised as a violation of the basic and legal political rights of the Papuan nation.

We hereby call on to the Honourable Judges in this forum to annul the trial held in order to accuse us of TREASON and make similar charges against us. The solution to the independence of the Papuan nation which is our most basic political right must be sought by means of international mechanisms between the Federal Republic of West Papua and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, mediated by the United Nations.

In order to regulate the transfer  of sovereign powers from the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia to the Federal Republic of West Papua, we intend to initiate a new phase of cooperation  based on the principles of democracy,  justice, peace, mutual respect and dignity. As is customary between independent and sovereign nations and states on Planet Earth.

Herewith our statement of REJECTION OF THE TRIAL BEING HELD TO ACCUSE  US OF TREASON AND SIMILAR CHARGES.

Jayapura, 30 January 2012

Signed:

1. Forkorus Yaboisembut, President of the Federal State of West Papua.
2. Edison G. Waromi, SH, Prime Minister of the Federal State of West Papua.
3. Agust M. Sananai Kraar, SIP,human rights activist/staff
4. Selpius Bobii, activist/staff
5. Dominikus Subarat, activist/staff

Related articles
1

Papuan People need not be afraid to talk about Independence

Bintang Papua,6 January 2011Papuans Needn’t be Afraid to Talk about Merdeka-Independence

Biak: A human rights lawyer and advocate has reminded the Papuan people that they needn’t be afraid  to talk about independence for Papua because independence for Papua is a basic human rights  that is legally recognised  and can be fought for by legal, democratic and political means. ‘I say this because  the 1945 Constitution guarantees these rights,’ said Yan Christian Warinussy, executive-director of LP3BH-Manokwari.

He said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People also guarantee these rights. He went on to say that  Papua Merdeka  is the political aspiration of the majority of the Papuan people which must be fought for  by peaceful,dgnfied and democratic means through universal legal and political mechanisms. All components of the Papuan people should unite  and discuss the various developments that provide the background for these aspirations of the Papuan people and should reach agreement on the issues that they should discuss in the context of a Papua-Indonesian dialogue.

The aspiration for Papua Merdeka must be used as the basis in every discussion which should at all times be based on the basic issues that were  agreed upon at the Papuan Peace Conference held from 5 – 7 July 2011 which included political, security, legal issues as well as basic human rights, and social, cultural, economic and environmental rights. He said that these issues were drawn up as the necessary steps towards the Papua-Indonesia Dialogue, with a recommendation about five people as negotiators agreed upon at the people’s conference. A declaration on a peaceful Papua was also agreed  upon as the guidance at the Papuan Peace Congress which was held from 16 – 19 October 2011 in Zacheus-Padang Bulan field, Abepura. Forkorus Yaboisembut was elected as the head, with Edison Waromi as the prime minister and all this was adopted as the strategic position of the  Papuan people on their way forward to the Dialogue.

Other components that were included were the OPM, the Papuan Presidium Council, the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, the West Papua National Authority, the National Youth Committee  the military wing, the TPN-PB, as well as other organisations in the Land of Papua and overseas*.   He expressed the hope that all these components would come together  and draw up an agenda for this struggle  in a systematic and responsible way, using legal and political mechanisms that are universally recognised. ‘Papuans need not be afraid to talk about their independence,’ he said.

{*West Papua Media note: this list of supporting organisations is referring to the Papua Peace Network meetings, and not to the 3rd Papuan People’s Congress at Zacheus Field: this Congress was not supported by all sectors of the resistance movement including the TPN-OPM and KNPB as they asserted it did not go far enough}

He also said that the Dewan Adat Papua – Customary Papuan Council – would be the people’s organisation that would unite all the various components in the Papuan struggle, in response to the aspirations of the Papuan people

He warned the security forces in the region not to stand in the way of the Papuan people or try to infiltrate the Papuan people in order to prevent them from freely using legal procedures and mechanisms  based on the 1945 Constitution and Law 39/1999 [on human rights] as well as other human rights documents in the course of their discussions on their political rights  in the Land of Papua.

Related articles
0

Forkorus Yaboisembut rejects charge of treason

Bintang Papua, 16 December 2011
Abridged in translation
After spending 56 days in  police custody,  Forkorus Yaboisembut along with four others, has finally been charged with treason. He is now being held in Abepura Prison.

The charge was strongly rejected by Gustav Kawar as one of their legal team. They say that police interrogators insisted that the five men be  charged even though  the police would need first to consider the incident in which they were involved right from the start.

Before the Papuan Peace Congress was held, the committee sent a letter of notification  to the police  requesting  permission for the congress to be held, and had also sent a letter to the minister for legal, political and security affairs  requesting him to be the keynote speaker at the congress, which the minister had agreed to, and had instructed the director-general of the ministry to open the congress.

‘How can this be said to be treason when there have been letters received from the police and the minister?,’ said the lawyers.

Even though the police interrogators have said that the documents for the trial are now complete, the lawyers will make a formal complaint, stressing that  what their clients had done was to express their opinions which is guaranteed  under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .

The lawyer said that their client(s)  had not yet signed any documents relating to the trial.Yet even so, the police interrogators consider that the documents are complete and have been submitted to the prosecutor’s  office..

He said that  usually when someone is charged with treason, there should have been an attack, but the Congress proceeded  peacefully  and came to a conclusion according to the aspirations of the Papuan people  who want to exercise their right to self-determination and to set up a state of West Papua.

When Forkorus and  his colleagues arrived at the prosecutor’s office, they were sent straight for interrogation by the prosecutor, Maskel Rombolangi, and were accompanied by their lawyer, Anum Siregar, and there was a request that the men should be held in custody  at the detention centre of the police.  This was firmly rejected by Selpius Bobii, accompanied by Domingus Serabut. Things then became quite tense . The five accused  were taken to the prosecutor’s office in Jayapura  for proceedings to continue.

‘We dont yet know whether they will be sent back to police custody,’ said the lawyers.

Gustav Kawar said that the five accused are: Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, Selpius Bobii, Domingus Sarabut and Agus Krat who have been charged under Article 106  with treason and for incitement under article 160 of the Penal Code. After the Congress, the five men and Gat Wenda  were arrested by the police after they had been involved in proclaiming the State of West Papua on 19 October in Abepura. At the sime time, three members of PETAPA, were killed. The first charge could result in sentences of twenty year or life , while the second charge can lead  to a six-year sentence.

One of the lawyers of Forkorus, Anum Siregar said that since 7 December, they had refused to be interrogated on the basis of an international covenant and rejected the charge of treason . Anum Siregar said that her clients had refused to be held at the police detention centres because they did not feel safe there and moreover, their families had not been permitted to visit them. The detained men said that they would prefer to be held at Abepura Prison because their families would be able to visit them and they felt safer there.

When the men met a reporter from Bintang Papua,  they said had been ill and had be treated violently , They also rejected medication provided by the police  and wanted to be treated by doctors at the general hospital. Finally, the men were handed over to the authorities at Abepura Prison  and they have been given medical check-ups.

Related articles
1

Warinussy on importance of ILWP meeting in August

[Readers please note that TAPOL decided not to waste time on the item
that appeared in Bintang Papua on 4 August because of its many
inaccuracies. See below. We guessed to the time that this was the result
of TNI intervention, to block accurate reporting about an important
event for Papua in the UK. Readers should also note that the three-hour
meeting in Oxford on 2 August is constantly being reported in the
Indonesian press as a KTT, Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi, a Summit
Conference, an expression normally reserved for meetings of heads of
state, which of course was not appropriate for the meeting held in
Oxford, which was a meeting attended by academics and activists. ]
———————————————-

Bintang Papua, 5 August 2011

Yan Christian Warinussy, a human rights activist and law practitioner,
has expressed his appreciation of the demonstrations organised by Papuan
activists in Sorong, Manokwari, Jayapura and Biak which highlighted the
principle of peace.

He said it was important for all organisations, especially the Dewan
Adat Papua (Papuan Customary Council), to gather together documents and
visual material about the ILWP conference that was held in the UK in
August. These documents need to be analysed and circulated widely to
the Papuan people and district governments, including the security
forces of the Indonesian armed forces and police, to ensure that
everyone has the same understanding about these activities as well as
their impacts on the future of the Papuan people.

‘Whether or not the idea of a referendum has the support of many
components is a matter for the future because it needs a response from
many groups, including those who are for and those who are against the
idea of self-determination for the Papuan people.

‘We need to remember that the right to self-determination is a right
for all the people on earth, including the indigenous Papuan people, as
stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’ Warinussy also
said that the achievements of the Papuan people in organising the Papuan
Peace Conference on 5 – 7 July this year was an extraordinarily
important event which no one had ever predicted. It was at this peace
conference that all the problems that the Papuan people have been
wrestling with for the past ten years were studied and analysed by
various groups and reported on scientifically. There were thoroughgoing
discussions which led to conclusions and recommendations that were
drawn up by representatives of the Papuan people who participated in the
conference.

The Dewan Adat Papua (Papuan Customary Council ) should speedily
consolidate their networks in the Land of Papua and take action
together with all components of the Papuan people to prepare concrete
measures for the achievement of a Papua-Indonesia dialogue in 2011.

Meanwhile, a news item published by Bintang Papua the headline of which
was ‘ILWP conference failed to reach agreement on its agenda’ described
it as ‘breaking news from the BBC but it was of questionable origin.
According to the editor of Bintang Papua, they realised that they had
not been careful enough in confirming that the BBC was the source of the
item; as a result, on the following day action was taken against the
person who had contributed the item, according to a statement by the
Bintang Papua editor.

According to the editor-in-chief of Bintang Papua, Walhamri Wahid, the
contributor admitted that the source of the item was an SMS which was
widely circulated by a senior officer of the Cenderawasih military
command, based on an SMS from a former OPM member who subsequently
defected and who was in London when the conference was taking place.

The SMS commenced with the words BREAKING NEWS BBC LONDON (written in
capital letters) which was sent by Frans Albert Joku in a report to a
senior officer at the Cenderawasih military command which was then
forwarded to Bintang Papua. ‘We did not clarify where the information
had come from, there was no check and counter check on its accuracy and
it was published as if it had been sent by BBC-London, said Walhamri
Wahid.

Bintang Papua abides by the Journalists’ Code of Ethics but on that
occasion, the journalist was in a race against time, facing a deadline
and relied solely on the journalist who had sent the item from the
field. ‘Our conclusion for the time being is that this news item was
untruthful, using another news agency as the source.’ It was decided on
the following day that they would confirm (this mistake) and apologise
if it turned out to be true that this report was not from the BBC. We
have received no denial from the BBC. ‘When I was later browsing on the
internet, I found no such breaking news in any of the reports from the
BBC, said the editor in chief.

At the time it was early in the morning, at 2am on 3 August, and this
was a news item that people in Papua were eagerly awaiting. This was
seen as an important day when the conference was adopting decisions
about the future of the Papuan people. According to the Bintang Papua
editor, their journalist (in the UK) was having difficulty reporting the
matter from the location of the meeting, and the impression was that it
was deliberately blocked so as to ensure that the news would not be
circulated.

The rest of this article regurgitates the erroneous information that was
contained in the BP report on 4 August.

[Reminder: Readers of this list may recall that we posted the following
statement on 4 August:

Note: The report in Bintang Papua today about the ILWP meeting in
Oxford on 2 August was so full of inaccuracies that it was a waste of
time to translate it. Suffice it to say that it described the meeting
as ‘a failure’.

Carmel Budiardjo, TAPOL

7

Lawyer, five students and others arrested in Manokwari

Above Photos: Assault & Arrest of Melki Bleskadit, Rev. Daniel and 6 youth Human Rights and Democracy Papuan Student Activists.
Names: Jems Aisoki, Yakonias Imbiri, Wilson Wader (Secretary of Youth Solidarity for Melanesian West Papua), Edi Kogoya, and two Youth Activist Students whose identity is not yet known. (trans)

In both cases, the reports have been abridged in translation by TAPOL

According to a report received this morning (14 December) from LP3BH,
the legal aid and investigation institute based in Manokwari, a member
of their lawyers team has been arrested by the police while he was
involved in monitoring a flag-raising incident on Tuesday, 14 December.

As reported by Yan Christian Warrinussy, executive director of the
LP3BH, the flag-raising is  an event held every year on 14 December to
mark the  anniversary of the independence proclamation by the West
Melanesian Council 22 years ago [in 1988] by Dr Thomas Wanggai [who died
shortly thereafter]

This year's anniversary flag-raising took place outside the office of
the Manokwari district office, under the leadership of Melkianus
Bleskadit, who was subsequently arrested by the police, acting on the
orders of police chief Agustinus Supriyanto . The Rev. Dance Yenu and
five others, all students were arrested, apparently for unfurling a flag.

A member of the institute's  human rights defenders team, Simon Risyard
Banundi, was arrested while monitoring the event, as part of the LP3BH's
human rights activities. Banundi is also a member of the Indonesian
organisation of lawyers, PERADIN which is the oldest lawyers
organisation in Indonesia.

The institute says that his arrest is in clear violation of article 17
of the criminal procedural code, Law 39/1999 on Human Rights, and Law
18/2003 on Lawyers and the International Convention on Human Rights
Defenders as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In a subsequently message, Warinussy  described the action by the
police  as being 'very arrogant', and  pointed out that Banundi, who has
been working as a member of the staff of the LP3BH for a year, has
frequently issued statements that are very critical  of the activities
of the police as well as the army, in response to their efforts to
reform both the police and the army, and critical in particular the
police special force, Brimob in Manokwari who are often seen drinking
alcohol with local people while bearing weapons that belong to Brimob.
On several occasions, they  are heard firing these weapons into the air.

Since his arrest this morning and up until 8pm, Simon Banundi has not
yet been interrogated because he is refusing to answer any questions as
he has no lawyer to accompany him. Nor have the police given any reason
for Simon's arrest.

In the opinion of PERADIN, his arrest is unlawful because he was in the
course of performing his duties a human rights defender

The flag-raising event is also reported in today's Bintang Papua though
they have not yet reported the arrest of Simon Banundi. The paper did
however report that the security forces had mustered a large number of
personnel, saying that they 'would not tolerate any unfurling of the
flag'. No fewer that 999 personnel were deployed in anticipate of the
event.

The paper reports that the deployment of special forces has been under
way for four days 'in order to ensure that the general public can
proceed with their activities without hindrance' according to the
police in the capital city of Jayapura , as well as along the border
with PNG, in order 'to guard vital places such as the governor's office,
the DPRP's headquarters and other places.
5

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑