UN Recommendations and Observations on West Papua

This is a comprehensive compilation of recommendations and observations made by international mechanisms of the United Nations, the European Union and other bodies regarding the conflict and human rights situation in West Papua or the human rights policies in Indonesia affecting the situation in West Papua. Any part of this compilation may be reused.

Observations and Recommendations by Year:

2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998

Observations and Recommendations by Mechanisms:

Universal Periodic Review

3. UPR Review | 2. UPR Review | 1. UPR Review

Treaty Bodies

Reviews and Mechanisms:

Special Procedures

Visits:

  • Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food visit in 2018: End of mission statement, Report not yet available
  • Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health visit in 2017:End of mission statement, Report
  • Special Rapporteur on adequate housing visit in 2013: Report
  • Special Rapporteur on torture (2007): Report
  • Special Representative on human rights defenders (2007): Report
  • Special Rapporteur on migrants (2006)
  • Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers (2002): Report
  • Special Rapporteur on the right to education (2002): Report
  • Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons (2001): Report
  • Working Group on arbitrary detention (1999): Report

Thematic reports and studies:

Special Procedure Communications:

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein ( February 2018 | March 2018 | June 2018)

Navi Pillay (November 2012)

UNDP Country Program Indonesia

Press Releases

 

2018

Opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein at 38th session of the Human Rights Council  (18 Juni 2018), available from https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23206&LangID=E

"In Indonesia, I am concerned that despite positive engagement by the authorities in many respects, the Government’s invitation to my Office to visit Papua – which was made during my visit in February – has still not been honoured." (Human Rights Council 18.06.2018)

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health on his mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council,Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health on his mission to Indonesia  (5 April 2018), available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/084/20/PDF/G1808420.pdf?OpenElement

"Regional inequities in access to good-quality health care

A  particular  challenge  faced  by  the  Indonesian  health-care  system  is  linked  to  the distinct  and  complex  geographical  and  regional  disparities  in  terms  of  socioeconomic indicators and infrastructure,  which particularly affect persons living  in the  eastern part  of
the country and on remote islands.

Availability  of  and  access  to  health-care  services  have  improved  over  the  past decades with the extension of health coverage through increased infrastructure, staffing and financing. The Special Rapporteur visited the eastern part of the country, including Labuan Bajo  and  Papua,  and  noted  some  of  the  public  initiatives  to  address  the  above-mentioned disparities. The  Nusantara  programme  is aimed at  developing primary  health-care  services in  border  and  underserved  areas  and  a  scheme  has  been  drawn  up  under  which specialist doctors complete a period of compulsory service in such areas.

However, the Special Rapporteur was apprised of some of the challenges to ensuring access to good-quality health-care services for the population in the eastern provinces of the country,  particularly  for  those  living  on  the  Lesser  Sunda  Islands  and  Papuans  living  in remote regencies (administrative subdivisions) in the highlands. He noted with concern that preventable  and  treatable  diseases  (respiratory-tract  infections,  measles,  diarrhoea  and dysentery)  claim  a  high  number  of  victims  and  affect  the  most  vulnerable  members  of communities, particularly children.

With  regard  to  Papua,  the  Special  Rapporteur  was  informed  that,  pursuant  to  the special autonomy framework (laws No. 21 on special autonomy for Papua Province (2001) and No. 35 amending law No. 21 on special autonomy for Papua Province to include West Papua  Province  (2008)),  Papua  and  West  Papua  Provinces  receive  larger  health-budget allocations  than  any  other  province.  Nonetheless,  he  expresses  regret  at  the  roseola epidemic  that affected  nine  villages  in  Deiyai  Regency  between  April  and  July  2017  and the outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in Nduga Regency in November 2015. While in  Jayapura,  the  Special  Rapporteur  met  with  representatives  of  local  communities  and ethnic  Papuans  and  gathered  information  and  testimonies  on  the  main  challenges  to accessing  good-quality  health  care.  Most  villages  in  remote  regencies  in  the  highlands suffer  from  a  lack  of  health  centres,  medical  equipment  and  qualified  medical  personnel. General  vaccination and immunization  services are  not consistently provided, there  are  no adequate  monitoring  mechanisms  and  public  health  services  are  not  delivered  in  an equitable manner. It is reported that military personnel have been deployed in the context of outbreaks  of  disease. Overall,  there  is  a  lack  of  trust  in  the  health  services  available  and ethnic Papuans experience stigmatization and discrimination in health-care settings.

The authorities should continue to improve access to good-quality health care and to build  the  capacity  of  health  structures  in  remote  regions.  Members  of Adat (customary) communities,  including  indigenous  Papuans,  should  have  full  access  to  public  health facilities, goods  and  services,  as  well  as  to  facilities,  goods  and  services  relating  to  the underlying  determinants  of  health,  such  as  safe  and  potable  water  and  adequate  food  and sanitation. The collection and use of disaggregated data are crucial to efforts to achieve this goal.  Culturally  appropriate  health-promotion  tools  and  information  should  be  developed and disseminated to prevent communicable and non-communicable diseases, particularly in remote areas.  Members  of Adat communities,  including  ethnic  Papuans,  should  be  trained as  health-care  workers,  accredited  as  medical  practitioners  and  integrated  into  the  health-care  system  at  all  levels.  Health-care  curricula  should  include  the  training  of  health-care workers to deliver culturally appropriate services." (Human Rights Council 05.04.2018: p. 8 f)

"Maternal mortality and morbidity

The  country  has  significantly  raised  the  life  expectancy  of  certain  sectors  of  the population  and reduced  child mortality  rates  over  the  past  decades.  The  completion  of  the maternal and neonatal tetanus immunization programme in May 2016 is commendable.

Government  regulation  No.  61  on  reproductive  health  (2014)  represented  a  step forward  regarding  efforts  to  address reproductive  health  issues.  In  2015,  the  Ministry  of Health  endorsed  a  national  action  plan  on  maternal  health  for  the  period  2016 – 2030. However, while under-5 mortality has been halved since the 1990s, the  maternal mortality rate has remained among the highest in the region, at 305 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, with  maternal  health  in  Papua,  Sulawesi,  Maluku  and  Nusa  Tengarra  Provinces lagging behind other parts of Indonesia. Reports indicate that most maternal deaths are the result of complications during pregnancy,  unsafe  delivery practices,  early pregnancies and poor  childbirth  and  postnatal  care,  including  low  levels  of  competence  of  birth  attendants and poor access to family planning services. Other underlying causes include  variations in the  availability  of  and  access  to  good  quality  referral  systems  for  obstetric  care  in emergencies, particularly in remote areas." (Human Rights Council 05.04.2018: p. 12)

"Persons living with HIV/AIDS

Indonesia  has  a  relatively  low  prevalence  of  HIV/AIDS,  which,  in  2016,  affected about  0.4  per  cent of  the  population  in  the  15 - 45-years  age  bracket.  However,  prevalence remains quite high among certain key populations, particularly men who have sex with men (25.8  per  cent),  injecting  persons  who  use  drugs  (28.7  per cent) and  transgender  persons (24.8 per cent). Over the past few years, the nature of the epidemic has been changing and most new cases of infection are  sexually transmitted. According to available  data, only 35 per  cent of  persons  living  with  HIV/AIDS  know  their  status,  the  coverage  of  adults  and children receiving antiretroviral treatment is quite low (about 13 per cent), and knowledge of HIV prevention among young persons should be improved.

An  analysis  of  the  epidemic  shows  that  most  cases  are  concentrated  in  a  few provinces,  mainly  Jakarta,  Papua  and  West  Papua  Provinces,  which  are  experiencing  a generalized epidemic.It is estimated that 2.4 per cent of the  general  population in Papua Province  is  living  with  HIV:  the  prevalence  of  HIV  is  reportedly  higher  among  young  persons aged 15 – 20 years." (Human Rights Council 05.04.2018: p. 17)

"The situation in Papua, where there is a generalized epidemic and infection rates are the  highest  at  the  national  level,  is  of  particular  concern.  The  Special  Rapporteur  notes specific  HIV/AIDS  policies  in  Papua,  where  HIV  tests  are  offered  to  all  users  of health services,  regardless  of  their  symptoms,  while  in  other  provinces,  they  are  only  offered  to members  of  high-risk  populations.  Despite these  and  other  commendable  attempts,  ethnic Papuans are currently twice as likely to have HIV/AIDS than the rest of the population, and rates  of  infection  are  on  the  rise  in  this  part  of  the  country.  The  situation  in  Wamena, Timika and Nabire Regencies shows that the epidemic is moving from coastal areas to the highlands, where most ethnic Papuans live, often in remote areas.

Ethnic  Papuans  face  important  challenges  when  it  comes  to  awareness,  testing, treatment and health-related services, both in terms of access but also of effectiveness of the response,  given  adverse  historical,  socioeconomic  and  cultural  factors.  Women  are  at particular  risk  in  this  context,  where  new  infections  are  mostly  sexually  transmitted.  This critical  situation  deserves  special  attention  and  efforts  from  all  stakeholders  to  build  trust among service providers and users, but also to scale up investment in the health sector and to enhance access to treatment and services in a culturally sensitive manner.

More  effort  is  required  to  actively  reach  out  to  those  populations,  both  as  a preventive measure and also to ensure effective access to health services. Age-appropriate, evidence-based, educational modules on HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention should be included in the school curricula." (Human Rights Council 05.04.2018: p. 18)

"The Special Rapporteur recommends that the authorities of Indonesia:

[...]

(c) Strengthen  the  health-care  system  and  guarantee  adequate,  equitable and sustainable  financing  by  increasing  national  budget  allocations  for  health,  and continue  improving  the  availability  and  accessibility  of  health  services  in  remote regions,  with  particular  focus  on  primary  care,  the  role  of  general  practitioners,  and the situation of Adat communities, including ethnic Papuans;

(d) Ensure  that  a  solid  health  information  system  is  in  place  to  generate quality national  data  and  statistics  for  the  analysis of  gaps  in  and  for  the  design, implementation, monitoring and review of health-related policies and services;

(e) Address  maternal  and  under-5  mortality,  including  by  referring  to  the WHO Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016 – 2030)and  the  technical Guidance  on  the  application  of  a  human  rights-based  approach  to the  implementation  of  policies  and  programmes  to  reduce  and  eliminate  preventable maternal  and  under-5 mortality  and  morbidity  (A/HRC/21/22  and  Corrs.  1–2 and A/HRC/27/31).

[...]

(k) Address without delay the HIV/AIDS situation in Papua by guaranteeing  access    to testing,   treatment    and    culturally    sensitive    health-related    services, particularly  for  young  persons  and  women,  and  build  trust  among  service  providers and users;" (Human Rights Council 05.04.2018: p. 20 f)

 

End of mission statement by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food on her mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Preliminary Observations of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Hilal Elver, on her mission to Indonesia 9-18 April 2018  (18 April 2018), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22949&LangID=E%27

"The Government has made and is making a good progress in terms of food production, but there is a need to diversify the policies so as to limit the focus on rice –which is, of course, one of the main staples in Indonesia. Polices developed to reduce food insecurity appear to be overly focused on rice as in the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE). Considering that not all of the population wishes to make rice their main staple, the Government’s policy in the production of staples should become more mindful of the diverse needs and preferences of communities with a variety of food traditions.

The availability of food has to satisfy the dietary needs as well as be sensitive to traditions and cultural values bearing on the relative acceptability of various foods.. The Government has responded to the population’s needs to food by promoting agriculture and by providing subsidies if necessary. However, it came to my attention that official policies and practices were not always sensitive to cultural attitudes pertaining to food, generating pockets of dissatisfaction. For instance, rice and instant noodles have been distributed in communities that have been accustomed to relying on different types of staple such as sagu.

Food is not just a quantity that will prevent people from being hungry. Especially in a culturally rich country such as Indonesians with its incredibly diverse and rich cultural background, food informs human identity; food defines who a person is. At the same time, food can take away or compromise the identity of people and distort its historical memory. In this regard, the Government’s food policies and practices should make a maximum effort to take the cultural acceptability of food into account."

[...]

"Malnutrition and food vulnerability are affecting certain regions more severely than others

and affecting certain population more than others. Children, lactating and pregnant women, indigenous peoples, people living in poverty and remote areas are especially vulnerable

Ladies and gentlemen,

Now, I want to draw your attention to a very tragic incident.

Over the last few months, 72 children have died in Asmat district in Papua: 66 from measles and 6 directly from malnutrition. The deaths were caused by multiple factors including chronic food insecurity issues and a lack of access to proper health services. Their deaths were preventable, but it was allowed to happen.

As a mother, I can’t even imagine the immeasurable pain and grief that the mothers and fathers must have felt -- seeing their children die from preventable causes and not being able to give them proper medical attention.

My deepest condolences go to the families and communities in Asmat who lost children.

Regrettably, I wasn’t able to go to Papua on this visit due to my limited time in the country, but thankfully a good number of their representatives came to talk to me.

I remember vividly an outcry from a midwife from Papua: “I can’t let the children die anymore; we can’t let that happen anymore. I don’t want to feed my people and children the food that we don’t want.”

I also remember the frustration. Some questioned, “Why? Why is this continuously happening to us? We are also Indonesians. We want to be treated like other Indonesians.”

I think this anguish expresses a very legitimate demand.

The Indonesian Government has an obligation, which it recognizes to guarantee the right to food to all of its population in Indonesia regardless of their origin, ethnicity, religion, gender or age. The challenge is to implement this fundamental obligation by adopting effective policies.

I understand that the Government, especially the President, has made the improvement of the livelihood of the people in Papua a high priority that focuses on ensuring food security and addressing malnutrition issues. I particularly welcome the Government’s willingness to cooperate with the UN human rights system on the challenge presented by the situation in Papua. This forthcoming attitude was expressed by inviting my colleague, Special Rapporteur on Health to Papua last year and extending a similar invitation to the team of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I am very glad to learn about the commitment of the Government, and strongly call on the Government to adopt measures to prevent such a tragedy ever happening again in Papua or anywhere else in Indonesia.

In the implementation of its commitments, the Government needs to take urgent actions to overcome the food and health immediate crisis in Papua but at the same time to address the root causes of food insecurity, including policies to reduce poverty and unemployment while increasing social protection, education and the general livelihood of the population...

Malnutrition does not only depend on food consumption but also is dependent on good health services, social welfare and poverty reduction programs, clean drinking water and sanitation.  In this regard, the Government should take a holistic approach in the realization of the right to food, especially in response to emergency conditions of which Papua is the outstanding current example."

[...]

"I was pleased to learn of the official recognition of indigenous lands. Following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the Government has announced that it would return 13,000 ha of customary lands to nine tribal communities. Given that many indigenous communities are dependent on land and forest as the principal source of their food and livelihood, recognizing their ownership and giving back the ancestral land to them is an important step toward the fulfilment of their right to food.

Another challenging issue involves large scale land acquisitions. It has been brought to my attention as one of the most critical obstacles blocking the realization of the right to food in Indonesia. With unclear land ownership and classification systems in the Government registry, businesses including logging, palm oil and mining companies have reportedly been given permits to operate in lands on which people had been farming for generations. Such reallocations of land are often done without consultation, and without implementing prior informed consent procedure with the affected population, without adequate compensation and without securing humane alternatives.

People are forcefully evicted from their lands and often face criminal charges while they are trying to re-claim the land, which is often the sole basis their livelihoods. It is said that more than 230 tribal leaders and activists are currently on trial over land issues and six tribes face near extinction as a result of land deprivations. I am gravely concerned about this criminalization of farmers, community members and activists over contested land issues. The Government should do more to avoid the land issue further escalating and ensure that these activities by farmers attempting to retain or reclaim their land should not be criminalized when their actions are in reasonable pursuit of their rights."

[...]

"Business activities especially businesses relating to palm oil, mining and other plantations have considerable impact on the right to food. Indonesia is the largest palm oil producer in the world and produces 35 million tonnes of palm oil per year. Palm oil appears to be a lucrative business but unfortunately the business came with some cost -- a cost over human rights, and environment. The industrial expansion of palm oil plantation over the past years has created in numerous issues related to the right to food such as deforestation, soil degradation, conflicts, and working conditions for plantation workers including long hours and handling of toxic fertilizers especially for women."

[...]

"Mining raises similar human rights concerns as palm oil business. Its impact on the environment such as pollution of land and water has resulted in reduced production of food and income for local communities who depend on the environment for their livelihood. There have been numerous conflicts over mining concession -- some resolved but many still on-going.

Mining and other big infrastructure projects needs environmental impact assessment (EIA) in order to get permit. In this regard, it is necessary to conduct an EIA that is more transparent and participatory to prevent problems rising later on.

Affected population should have access to remedies when their rights are violated by businesses and those who perpetrated violation should be held accountable."

[...]

"Extreme weather events induced by climate change have affected the country claiming lives of people and damaging livelihoods including food production. For instance, the prolonged Niño drought in 2015 and 2016, disrupted farming, increased diseases and reduced crop production. Climate change could have more devastating effects on human rights especially the right to food if proper measures are not taken including mitigation and adaptation. Having said that these policies should be carefully considered not to violate peoples’ livelihood."

[...]

"Second, the Government should take urgent actions to reduce malnutrition. It should also eradicate root causes for hunger and malnutrition such as poverty, unemployment and lack of social welfare services.

Third, food policy should diversify. The current rice self-sufficiency focused food policy will not provide a long term solution to food security and nutrition as well as sustainable agricultural practices."

[...]

"Sixth, the Government should resolve issues relating to land tenureship. It should expedite the implementation of distribution of lands to farmers and resolve all land-related conflicts. The Government should not criminalize farmers, community members, activists working on land issues but provide them with consultations and mediations.

Seventh, the Government should make sure business activities especially large plantations, palm oil and mining activities are in line with international human rights laws and principles. Businesses should also ensure that their practices respect human rights in compliance with their responsibility contained in the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights."

 

Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights during his mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at a press conference during his mission to Indonesia (7 February 2018), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22638&LangID=E

"The farmer who spoke about her rights to land and her fear of dispossession due to extractive industries. The father from Papua whose son was shot. The wife of a human rights defender who was poisoned in 2004 but the authors of his murder remain at large. The minority worshippers who want their place to pray. The mother who, 20 years after she lost a child during the 1998 violence in Jakarta, still pines for him. The elderly woman who is fighting for justice 53 years after she was imprisoned and stigmatised as a “communist” during the 1965 tragedy. And the lawyer who has seen up close the judicial injustice that is the death penalty. They all asked me to help amplify their voices, and I thank them for their tenacity and grit and salute their courage."

[...]

"Indonesia has enjoyed continuous economic growth for several years and has a wealth of natural and human resources. However not all Indonesians have benefited from the dividends. The true measure of development and economic growth should be its impact on the most vulnerable, those who have the least to begin with. The President has taken many positive steps towards social equity. Nevertheless, gaps remain in the protection of the economic and social rights of Indonesians. Severe malnutrition has been reported in remote areas of the country, including in the highlands of Papua, and many still struggle with poverty and preventable diseases."

[...]

"Civil society actors have told us how, from the islands of Sumatra to Papua, mining and logging by large corporations have been a source of serious human rights violations against farmers, workers and indigenous communities. By and large, these projects are approved and implemented without meaningful consultation with the local communities. Land grabbing, environmental degradation, contamination of water supplies and resulting health hazards have ensued. Having lost control over their natural resources to corporations that wield enormous power, people spoke to me about their great frustration. There is a clear need for inclusive dialogue and consultation and such projects must not be undertaken without the free, fair and informed consent of the affected communities. Civil society estimates suggest that some 200 land rights and environmental defenders were facing criminal charges as of August last year."

[...]

"I also appeal to the Government to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, in particular those advocating on land and environmental issues, and to see to it that they are not penalised or prosecuted for their exercise of the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

I am also concerned about increasing reports of the excessive use of force by security forces, harassment, arbitrary arrests and detentions in Papua.

I am greatly concerned about the discussions around revisions to the penal code."

[...]

"I would also like to urge the Indonesian Government to take steps towards accountability for the gross human rights violations of the past. This is a delicate but crucial undertaking.

Almost all countries have an extremely difficult time dealing with the darkest periods of their respective pasts, but it must be done. As one senior official told me, Indonesia is still stuck in 1965 – unable to reckon with the terrible events that took place then, including the killings of at least 500,000 people accused of being communists, and the detention of many more. But this country can move on – through truth-telling, reconciliation, investigations and prosecutions. The national human rights institution, Komnas Ham, has highlighted nine key cases of gross rights violations between 1965 and 2003 that need to be resolved. I urge the Attorney-General to tackle these cases, in particular by bringing the perpetrators to justice and affording victims long-overdue redress as a matter of priority."
 

High Commissioner's Global Update of Human Rights Concerns - 2018

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, High Commissioner's Global Update of Human Rights Concerns, 37th session, 2nd item (07 March 2018), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22772

 "I m concerned about conditions in West Papua and thank the authorities for giving my Office access to the area" (Human Rights Council,  07.03.2018)

 

2017

End of mission statement by the Special Rapporteur on the Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health on his mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Preliminary Observations of the Special Rapporteur on the Right in the right of everyone on the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Dainius Pūras,  on his mission to Indonesia  22 March to 3 April 2017  (3 April 2017), available from http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21472&LangID=E

"I had the opportunity to visit health facilities at different levels in Jakarta, Padang, Labuan Bajo and Jayapura, including health posts at village level, primary care centres (puskemas), general hospitals including psychiatric units, a mental hospital, HIV/AIDS clinics, and a drug rehabilitation clinic. I have also visited two polytechnics or education centres for health workers. I take this opportunity to thank the UN Resident Coordinator and the UN Country Team for their crucial support to my visit."

[...]

"HIV-AIDS is concentrated amongst certain key affected populations, as well as ethnic Papuans, who still face stigma and discrimination, including in healthcare settings. The approach to drug policy remains excessively punitive undermining the right to health of people who use drugs and public health efforts."

[...]

"The country has made several attempts to increase the life expectancy of the population. While infant and child mortality rates have considerably reduced over the past decades, the maternal mortality rate has remained high and continues to pose problems in improving women’s quality of life, with maternal health in Papua lagging behind other parts of Indonesia."

[...]

"I am very concerned about the situation in Papua where there is a generalized epidemic and infection rates are the highest at the national level. I visited Jayapura and learnt that, despite commendable attempts from all levels of government and other stakeholders, ethnic Papuans are two times more likely to have HIV/AIDS than the rest of the population, and new infection are increasing amongst this group. They face important challenges when it comes to testing, treatment and health-related services both in terms of access but also effectiveness of the response given adverse historical, socio-economic and cultural factors. The critical situation of HIV/AIDS in Papua deserves special attention and efforts from all stakeholders to build trust amongst service providers and users, but also to scale up investment in the health sector, and enhance access to treatment and services in a culturally-sensitive manner."

 

Communication by Special Procedures regarding Shooting in Oneibo Village

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 6/2017, (8 September 2017) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=23322

"Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection on the freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Excellency,

We  have  the  honour  to  address  you  in  our  capacities  as Special  Rapporteur on minority issues; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection on the freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 34/6, 34/18, 32/32 and 34/5.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government  information  we  have  received  concerning the excessive use of force by police officers against Papuan villagers - some of them minors - during protests in Oneibo village.

According to the information received:

On 1 August 2017, workers of a construction company, PT Dewa Krisna, in Oneibo village, situated in Waghete District, Deiyai Regency, Papua Province, refused to lend a car to take a victim of drowning, an indigenous Papuan, to the nearby hospital. The young man subsequently died.

In protest, a group of dozen of villagers walked to the workers' camp at around 1:30 pm ad started tearing down facilities, including workers' tents in the company's compound. At around 4:30 pm, a truck with fully armed mobile brigade police officers, carrying automatic combat rifles, arrive din Oneibo village. The police officers belonged to special police unit, named Mobile Police Brigade (BRIMOB). When the villagers saw the police arriving, they began to throw rocks and sticks at them. The BRIMOB officers did not attempt to calm down the situation or disperse the crowd with warning shots, but immediately opened fire, releasing indiscriminate shots at the crowd, despite the presence of many children.                

Mr. Yulianus Pigai - 27 years old - was shot by several bullets which penetrate his thighs and his stomach. He died while he was being taken to Waghete Hospital. To date, no autopsy has been performed to establish the cause of his death.

Mr. Yulianus Pekey, 51 years old, died in his house allegedly due to the considerable shock he experienced as he witnessed the shooting.

Five indigenous Papuans were seriously injured by bullets, including Mr. Delian Pekei, Mr. Yohanes Pakage, Mr. Amos Pakage, Mr. Marius Dogopia, Mr Titus Pekei.

Other five injured victims were minors: [...]. Apart from Mr Titus Pekei, all victims were brought to the Uwibutu general hospital where they received medical treatment.

On the same day, the spokesperson of the Regional Police for Papua issued a statement stating the security forces had used rubber bullets and had fired warning shots. However, an internal investigation, opened on 11 August 2017 by the Chief of the Regional Police for Papua, alleged that the police personnel involved in the incident had violated the standard procedure for dealing with the unrest.

We express grave concern about the excessive use of force, especially the use of lethal force, by law enforcement officials in responding to protests, leading to the killing of one individual, Mr Yulianus Pigai, the death of Mr. Martinus Pekey, and injuring of ten other, including five minors. We are concerned such repression will have a dissuasive effect on protesters while exercising their legitimate rights in Indonesia. We are also concerned that the alleged acts appear to have been committed in connection with minority and the indigenous identities of the Papuan protesters.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Annex  on the Reference  to international human rights law attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

It  is  our  responsibility,  under  the  mandates  provided  to  us  by  the  Human  Rights Council,  to  seek  to  clarify  all  cases  brought  to  our  attention,  we  would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the case accurate?

2. Please provide the details, and where available,  and   where   available the results of any investigation and judicial or other inquiry undertaken in relation to the allegations, especially in relation to allegations of extra-judicial killing of Mr. Pigai and the injury of ten individuals, including five minors. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.

3. Please provide information about the directives  issued by the Government to law-enforcement  personnel concerning the precise circumstances in which the use of lethal force is authorized, and indicate how these directives comply with the with the international human rights obligations of Indonesia under the ICCPR, as well as the requirements of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force  and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials." (Human Rights Council, 8 September 2017)

 

Communication by Special Procedures regarding extra-judicial killing of Edison Hesegem

Reference:  Human Rights Council, Communications by Special Procedures, AL IDN 1/2017 (17 March 2017), available here


"Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Excellency,

We  have  the  honour  to  address  you  in  our  capacities  as Special  Rapporteur  on torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/13 and 26/12.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government  information  we  have  received  concerning the alleged  torture  and  cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Mr. Edison  Hesegem  by police  officers of the Jayawijaya District Police, Papua that led to his death in custody.

Mr.  Edison  Hesegem  was  a  20  years -old  farmer  living  in  Jayawijaya  regency, Papua, Indonesia. He belonged to the indigenous Papuan of the Dani Tribe.

According to information received:

On  11  January 2017,  Mr.  Edison  Hesegem  was  violently  arrested  by  six  police officers  of  the  Jayawijaya  District  Police,  Jayawijaya  regency,  Papua.  According to  the  police,  Mr.  Hesegem  was  arrested  for  being  drunk  and  for  attempting  to steal  a  dog. Following  his  arrest  during  which  he  was  repeatedly  beaten,  Mr. Hesegem   was   brought   to   the   police   station   of   the   airport   (Polsek   Kp3). Throughout the night and while being detained at Polsek Kp3, Mr. Hesegem was severely  tortured  by  the  police  officers,  resulting  in  bruises  on his  face  and  an injury on the back of his head.

In the early morning of 12 January 2017, Mr. Hesegem was sent to the Jayawijaya general  hospital  by  the  police.  There,  he  was  subjected  to  further  violence  by police officers while he was being taken to the emergency room: he was kicked on his  lower  back  and  was  repeatedly  hit  on  his  head  by  rifle  butts.  After  receiving medical  care,  Mr.  Hesegem  was escorted  back  to  Polsek  Kp3  where  he  suffered more  ill-treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  police.  He  fell  unconscious  and  was hospitalised  once  again.  On  13  January  2017,  Mr.  Hesegem  died  in  Jayawijaya hospital.

According to the post-mortem examination carried out by the Bhayangkara Police Hospital in Jayapura City, Mr. Hesegem’s death was caused by a strong impact to his cerebellum.

On 14 January 2017, the head of the Papuan regional Police admitted in a public statement  that  the  police  officers  had  used  excessive  force  during  the  arrest  and inside  the hospital,  but  contended  that  the  fatal  injury  was  a  result  of  an uncontrolled fall from a fence, as Mr. Hesegem allegedly attempted to escape.

Grave concern is expressed about the alleged torture inflicted on Mr. Edison Hesegem by Polsek Kp3 police officers and his subsequent death in custody.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Annex on  Reference  to  international  human  rights  law attached  to  this  letter  which  cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

It  is  our  responsibility,  under  the  mandates  provided  to  us  by  the  Human  Rights Council,  to  seek  to  clarify  all  cases  brought  to  our  attention,  we  would  therefore be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

Please  provide  any  additional  information  and/or  comment(s)  you  may  have  on the above-mentioned allegations.

1. Has a complaint been lodged?  If there has been  a complaint, has any judicial or administrative proceeding been launched for the case?

2. Please   provide   the   details,   and   where   available   the   results,   of   any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.

3. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details   of   any   prosecutions   which   have   been   undertaken.   Have   penal, disciplinary   or   administrative   sanctions   been   imposed   on   the   alleged perpetrators?

4. Please indicate any remedial action taken vis à vis Mr. Hesegem’s family.

5. Please  provide  information  on  measures  taken  by  your  Excellency’s Government  to  prevent  the  excessive  use  of  force  by  law  enforcement officials" (Human Rights Council, 17 March 2017)

Universal Periodic Review - 3rd Cycle

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Indonesia, A/HRC/36/7 (14 July 2017), available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/192/60/PDF/G1719260.pdf?OpenElement

"Indonesia welcomed the visit in April 2017 of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, during  which  he  was  able  to  gain  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  progress  and  challenges faced  in  Jakarta,  West  Sumatra,  East  Nusa  Tenggara  and  Papua." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 2)

"12. The  President  was  committed  to  a  comprehensive  and  multifaceted  policy  to accelerate development  in  Papua  and  West  Papua  provinces,  which  would  enable  the Papuans to enjoy prosperity on the same basis as their fellow countrymen in other parts of Indonesia.  Moreover,  efforts  to  address  the  issue  of  injustice,  including  alleged  human rights violations in Papua, were under way, including through the establishment in 2016 of an  integrated  team  under  the  Coordinating  Minister  for  Political,  Legal  and  Security Affairs, involving the National Commission on Human Rights.

13. The Government had lifted restrictions in order for foreign journalists to visit Papua. Indonesia  noted that 39 journalists  had  visited Papua  in 2015, a  41 per cent increase  from 2014. In addition, around 90 international organizations and civil society organizations had visited Papua since 2012."

"20. Indonesia was strongly committed to upholding freedom of opinion and expression, and in that regard noted that in Jakarta there had been 3,148 public demonstrations in 2015 and 2,784 in 2016. In 2015 in Papua, one demonstration to ok place every two days." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 3)

"36. Serbia welcomed the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment  or  Punishment,  training  for police and prison officers and the establishment of the national task force on trafficking in persons." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 4)

"39. Slovakia  appreciated  the  steps  taken  to  revise  the  Criminal  Code  and  to  promote interfaith  dialogue  and  tolerance  while  expressing  concern  about  the  use  of  the  death penalty."

"56. The  United  States  of  America  expressed  concern  about,  inter  alia,  the  lack  of  an accountability framework for abuses by the military and police and restrictions on freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, including in Papua and West Papua." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 5)

"67. Australia  acknowledged  the  introduction  of  the  Law on  Persons  with  Disabilities and   encouraged   Indonesia   to   establish   a   national   disability   commission.   Australia welcomed  the  demonstrated  commitment  of  Indonesia  to  economic  development  in  the Papua provinces.

68. Austria  expressed  concern  about  undue  restrictions  on  freedom  of  expression,  lack of  accountability  for  violations  by  security  forces  in  Papua  and  attacks  against  religious minorities and places of worship."

"78. Indonesia  noted that  the  law relating to the  special autonomy of Papua  and the  law relating to Western Papua had been implemented to promote effective local governance and development.  Both provinces  were  self-governed and administrated by  local governments, led by democratically elected native Papuans." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 6)

"100. Germany  acknowledged  the  progress  made  in  several  areas,  notably  conciliatory measures in Papua and West Papua." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 8)

"134. The   national   police   force   had   provided   cooperative   training   on   investigative interviewing  to  up  to  3,000  law  enforcement  personnel.  Other  training  was  provided regularly, including for trainers of investigative interviewing and on humanitarian law.

136.Indonesia  highlighted  that  a  large  number  of  local  regulations  had  been  reformed following  the  recommendation  of  the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs,  in  line  with  recognized human  rights  principles  and  standards.  Continuing efforts  were  being  made  to  enhance human  rights  capacity  and  knowledge  in  all  provinces  and  cities,  including  Aceh,  Papua and West Papua." (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 10)

"139.2 Consider  the  ratification  of  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Convention against Torture (Georgia) (Kazakhstan);
139.3 Take  further  steps  to  ratify the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Convention against Torture (Mozambique);
139.4 Ratify  the  Optional  Protocol  to the  Convention  against  Torture (Denmark) (Guatemala) (Hungary) (Montenegro) (Portugal) (Turkey);
139.5 Ratify without delay the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture,  as  well  as  the  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  All Persons  from  Enforced  Disappearance,  and  expedite  the  harmonization  of legislation in accordance with them (Bosnia and Herzegovina);
139.6 Ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from  Enforced  Disappearance  (France)  (Portugal)  (Ukraine)  (Sierra  Leone); Ratify  the  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  All  Persons  from Enforced  Disappearance  to strengthen  the  Convention  from  the  perspective  of universality and compliance (Japan); Complete the process of ratification of the International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  All  Persons  from  Enforced Disappearance (Kazakhstan);"

" 139.22 Urgently  make  all  acts  of  torture offences  under  its  criminal  law, including  in  the  Criminal  Code  of  Indonesia,  consistent  with  its  binding obligations under the Convention against Torture (Canada);
139.23 Review the Criminal Code to align it with the definition of torture in the Convention against Torture (Honduras);
139.24 Adopt   legislative   measures   to   prevent   and   combat   intimidation, repression  or  violence  against  human  rights  defenders,  journalists  and  civil society organizations (Mexico);" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 11)

"139.51 Improve training and administrative instructions for police and local authorities   to   ensure   that   the   right   to   peaceful   assembly   is   universally respected, including in the provinces of Papua and West Papua (Germany)"

"139.53 Expedite  the  process  of  revising  the  Criminal  Code  ensuring  that  it includes a definition of torture  consistent with the Convention against Torture (Republic of Korea);
139.54 Adopt the national anti-torture bill and establish an effective national preventive mechanism (Serbia);
139.55Continue efforts to fight against torture (Iraq)" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 13)

"139.65 Facilitate   the   work   of   human   rights   defenders   and   journalists throughout the country (France);
139.66 Step  up  efforts to  ensure  protection  of  journalists  and  human  rights defenders (Iraq);
139.67 Ensure human rights obligations in Papua are upheld, respected and promoted,  including  freedom  of  assembly,  freedom  of  the  press  and  the  rights of women and minorities (New Zealand);"

"139.76 Ensure  that  the  freedom  of  speech  of  civil  society  organizations  and special interest groups is promoted and respected across Indonesia so that they can, within the legal framework, voice their views and concerns, even on issues that can be sensitive (Netherlands);" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 14)

"139.88 Strengthen  prevention  and  monitoring  measures  in  the  health  sector (Angola);"

139.90 Continue   to   improve   access   to   health-care   services   by   funding programmes  that  improve  the  quality  of  health  services  in  rural  villages (Maldives);
139.91 Redouble   efforts   in   sex   education   and   access   to   sexual   and reproductive  health  in  the  whole  country  with  a  view  to  reducing  maternal mortality  and  combating  AIDS,  early  pregnancies,  abortions  carried  out  in situations   of   risk,   child   marriages   and   violence   and   sexual   exploitation (Colombia);
139.92 Further  improve  the  coverage  of  reproductive,  maternal,  newborn, child and adolescent health services in the country (Kazakhstan);
139.93 Continue   to   implement   policies   to   ensure   the   availability and affordability  of  education  to  all  Indonesians,  in  particular  those  in  the  remote regions and those with special needs (Singapore)"

"139.97 Continue   strengthening   measures   to   ensure   education   for   all, including  expanding  the  infrastructure  of  the educational  system  in  the  whole territory of the country (Belarus);" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 15)

"141.6 Ratify,  before  the  next  universal  periodic  review  cycle,  the  Optional Protocol  to  the  Convention  against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or degrading   Treatment   or   Punishment,   and   establish   a   national   preventive mechanism accordingly (Czechia);
141.7 Take measures to put an end to torture and ill-treatment practised by the  police  forces  and  to  combat  the  impunity  of  people  responsible  for  such offences, including by ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment  or  Punishment (France);"

"141.11 Consider  ratifying  the  Rome  Statute  of  the  International  Criminal Court, including its Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities (Botswana);
141.12 Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Latvia)
(Madagascar) (Portugal) (Timor-Leste);
141.13 Accede to the Rome Statute as amended at the Review Conference in Kampala  in  2010  and  align  its  national  legislation  with  the  obligations  under the Rome Statute, the definition of crimes and principles, including the crime of aggression (Liechtenstein);
141.14 Ratify  the  Rome  Statue  of  the  International  Criminal  Court  in accordance  with  the  commitment  made  in  the  National  Human  Rights  Action Plan (Hungary);
141.15 Adhere  to  and  adapt  national  laws  to  the  Rome  Statute  of  the International Criminal Court (Guatemala);
141.16 Ratify  the  Convention  on  the  Prevention  and  Punishment  of  the Crime of Genocide (Armenia);
141.17 Ratify   the   Convention   on   the   Non-Applicability   of   Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (Armenia);
141.18 Accede to the Arms Trade Treaty (Guatemala);
141.19 Ratify  as  soon  as  possible  the  ILO  Indigenous  and  Tribal  Peoples Convention, 1989 (No.169) (Guatemala)"(Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 19)

"141.22 Consider  extending  an  open  and  standing  invitation  to  the  special procedures (Bosnia and Herzegovina);
141.23 Extend  an  open  invitation  to  all  special  procedures  of  the  Human Rights  Council  (Uruguay);  Issue  a  standing  invitation  to  special  procedures (Kazakhstan);  Extend  a  standing  invitation  to  special  procedures  mandate holders,  respond  positively  to  all  requests  to  visit  the  country  and  cooperate fully,  promptly  and  substantively  with  the  Human  Rights  Council  special procedures (Latvia);
141.24 Extend an  invitation  to  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  rights  of indigenous peoples to visit Indonesia, including Papua, in line with the openness of Indonesia to collaborate with special procedure mandate holders (Mexico);
141.25 Complete  swiftly  the  discussions within  the  legislative  body  on  the revised draft of the Criminal Code (Turkey)" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 19 f)

"141.30 Repeal or  amend articles 106 and 110 of the Criminal Code to avoid restrictions on freedom of expression (Germany);
141.31 End prosecutions under articles 106 and 110 of the Criminal Code for exercising  freedom  of  expression  and  peaceful  assembly  (United  States  of America);" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 20)

" 141.56 Take  further  steps to ensure  a safe and enabling environment for  all human rights defenders, including those representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and adat communities (Norway)"

" 141.58 Ensure  that  existing  legal  and  constitutional  provisions  protecting human rights in particular freedom of expression, association and assembly are fully  implemented  nationwide;  repeal  discriminatory  local  by-laws  contrary  to the   Constitution   of   Indonesia;   prioritize   progress   on   equality   and   non-discrimination,  including  in  relation  to  lesbian,  gay,  bisexual  and  transgender persons;  take  action  to  prevent  extremist  groups  from  harassing,  intimidating or  persecuting  religious  and  other   minorities;  and   provide  human  rights training to officials in the legal and judicial system (Ireland);
141.59 Intensify  all  efforts  to  respect  and  uphold  freedom  of  expression, assembly, and   religion  and   belief,   and   to   prevent   discrimination  on  any grounds including sexual orientation and gender identity (Australia);
141.60 Ensure the respect of the right to a fair trial, as provided by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to appeal for persons sentenced to death (Republic of Moldova);
141.61 Continue  to  combat  impunity,  including  by  strengthening  laws  and regulations as well as their implementation (Turkey);
141.62 Thoroughly  and  transparently  investigate  past  human  rights  abuses (United States of America);
141.63 Finalize   the   investigation   of   all   human   rights   cases   in   Papua (Australia)"(Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 22)

"141.74 Evaluate  the  establishment  of  mechanisms  that  allow  indigenous peoples to be guaranteed the right to their ancestral lands (Peru);
141.75 End  compulsory  drug  treatment  and  reform  mandatory  reporting requirements to allow for anti-discriminatory access to health care (Portugal)" (Human Rights Council 14.07.2017: p. 23)

 

2016

Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) – Early Warning Procedure regarding Human Rights Situation in West Papua

Reference: United Nations, Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Early Warning Procedure, CERD/91st/EWUAP/SW/ks (13 December 2016), available from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/IDN/INT_CERD_ALE_IDN_8134_E.pdf

"Excellency,

I write to inform you that in the course of its 91 st session, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered further the situation of potential human rights violations in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua under its early warning and urgent action procedures. In this regard, the Committee refers to its previous letter on the subject of 3 October 2016.

The Committee would like to thank your Government for its correspondence of 24 November 2016.

The Committee takes note of information provided by your Government, in particular your clarification that freedoms of expression and assembly are guaranteed under the Indonesian Constitution, are applied without discrimination, and that the Special Autonomy Law facilitates self-government and self-administration for Papuans.

The Committee wishes to alert the Republic of Indonesia that additional allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention of protestors of West Papuan origin have been reported to it, as well as recent instances of forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings of West Papuan community leaders seeking an independent state.

If substantiated, the above allegations that have been brought to the Committee’s attention would hinder the full enjoyment of rights under the Convention in the State party, in particular the rights enshrined in article 2(b), article 3, article 4(c) and article
5(b), (c) and (d) viii, ix.

In accordance with article 9(1) of the Convention and article 65 of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee would be grateful to receive another response outlining the current situation in Papua and West Papua and the policies and actions adopted by the security forces in the region. In particular, information detailing recent treatment of protestors, community leaders and human rights defenders would be welcomed before 3rd April 2017.

Finally, the Committee is encouraged to hear that the State party is in the process of finalizing its fourth to sixth combined periodic reports for review. It would also like to inform your Government that the above issues will be examined when the State party next comes before the Committee. The Committee looks forward to receiving the overdue reports from the Republic of Indonesia as soon as practicable." (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13.12.2016, p. 1)

Download document as PDF File

 

Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) – Early Warning Procedure regarding Human Rights Situation in West Papua 

Reference: United Nations, Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Early Warning Procedure, CERD/90th/EWUAP/GH/MJA/ks (3 October 2016), available from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/IDN/INT_CERD_ALE_IDN_8093_E.pdf

"Excellency,

I write to inform you that in the course of its 90 th session, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered, under its early warning and urgent action procedure, allegations of excessive use of force, arrests, killings and torture of persons belonging to the Papuan indigenous people in West Papua, Indonesia, and allegations of discrimination against this people, that have been brought to its attention by a non-governmental organisation.

According to information received, persons belonging to the Papuan indigenous people in West Papua have, for some years, been facing repression by security forces of the State party during Papuan flag-raising ceremonies and demonstrations.

Reportedly, between April 2013 and December 2014, security forces killed 22 persons during demonstrations and a number of persons have also been killed or injured since January 2016. It is alleged that, in May 2014, more than 470 persons belonging to the Papuan indigenous people were arrested in cities of West Papua during demonstrations against extraction and plantation activities. Such arrests have reportedly increased since the beginning of 2016 amounting to 4000 between April and June 2016 and have included human rights activists and journalists.

Such acts have reportedly never been investigated and those responsible have gone unpunished. The submission claims that repression of persons belonging to the Papuan indigenous people is the result of a misinterpretation and lack of a correct implementation of the Special Autonomy Law by local and national authorities of Indonesia. The submission also claims that actions by security forces constitute violations of the rights of freedom of assembly and association." (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 3.10.2016, p. 1)

"Additionally, it is reported that, for decades, the State party has implemented a policy consisting of favouring the migration of non indigenous persons from other parts of Indonesia to West Papua, which leads to the decline in representation of the population of Papuans in comparison to the general population in their territory. Further, the submission alleges that Papuan indigenous people in West Papua face the poorest educational standards in the country resulting in very low rates of literacy, as low as 20 per cent in remote villages.

In light of information above, the Committee is concerned that these allegations, if verified, could hinder the full enjoyment of rights under the Convention. The Committee reiterates the concern expressed and recommendations made in paragraph 22 of its concluding observations (CERD/C/IND/CO/3, para. 22) of 15 Augsut 2007.

In accordance with Article 9 (1) of the Convention and article 65 of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee requests that the State party submit information on all of the issues and concerns as outlined above by 14 November 2016, as well as on any action already taken to address these concerns. In particular, it requests that the Government of Indonesia provide information on: a) its response to the allegations described above; b) the status of implementation of the Special Autonomy Law in West Papua ; c) measures taken to ensure the effective protection of indigenous people in West Papua from arbitrary arrests and detentions as well as deprivation of life; d) measures taken to ensure that indigenous people from West Papua effectively enjoy their rights to freedom of assembly and association including persons with dissenting opinions; e) measures taken to investigate allegations of excessive use of force by security forces including killings; f) steps taken to improve access to education of Papuan children in West Papua in particular those living in very remote areas." (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 3.10.2016, p. 2)

Download document as PDF File

 

Study on Fundamentalism by Special Rapporteur on FoAss

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, A/HRC/32/36 (31 May 2016), available from http://freeassembly.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A.HRC_.32.36_E.pdf

“In relation to Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur received reports that authorities’ enforcement of the nationalist ‘Unitary State’ ideology extends to the repression of demonstrations by ethnic West Papuans. He stresses that the State has the responsibility to protect and facilitate protests that advocate for political and cultural views that differ from, and even oppose, those espoused by the Government.” (Human Rights Council 31.05.2016,  p. 18)

 

Communications Reports of Special Procedures

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communications Report of Special Procedures, Communications sent, 1 March to 31 May 2016; Replies received, 1 May to 31 July 2016, A/HRC/33/32 (8 September 2016), available from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/A_HRC_33_32_E.docx

"Alleged excessive use of force, killing, torture, arbitrary detention and charges against individuals for the exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression. According to the information received, on 1 December 2015, indigenous Papuans commemorated their National Day through numerous peaceful demonstrations and prayer services across Indonesia. At demonstrations and events held in Jakarta, Yapen Island and Nabire, security forces used blockades, tear gas and violence to end the commemorations, resulting in the injury of 141 individuals and death of four individuals. Another 355 individuals were arrested and detained, and two were charged with criminal offences. All individuals were subsequently released and the charges brought against the two individuals dropped. Previous communications concerning the exercise by indigenous Papuans of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression were sent on 9 October 2015 see A/HRC/31/79, case no. IDN 8/2015; 1 May 2014, see A/HRC/27/72, case no. IDN 2/2014; 23 September 2013, see A/HRC/25/74, case no. IDN 4/2013; and 24 July 2012, see A/HRC/22/67, case no. IDN 6/2012." (Human Rights Council, 08.09.2016, p. 29)

"Alleged preventable deaths of 51 children and three adults as a result of a Pertussis epidemic in Papua Province, Indonesia. According to the information received, between November 2015 and 5 January 2016, 51 children and three adults died of Pertussis in the Nduga Regency, a remote area in the highlands of Papua Province that is mainly inhabited by indigenous Papuans. The spread of the epidemic was reportedly facilitated by food and clean water shortages, chronic malnutrition and poor availability of and lack of access to adequate medical services. Information received indicated that preventive immunizations had not been provided to the indigenous Papuans. Both national and local government institutions reportedly failed to adequately prevent, treat and control the Pertussis epidemic. It is therefore alleged that the 54 deaths were preventable and the result of government neglect." (Human Rights Council, 08.09.2016, p. 61)

"Alleged excessive use of force, degrading treatment and arbitrary arrest of 20 West Papuan activists in Papua Provinces of Indonesia. According to the information received, on 12 and 13 April 2016, 20 West Papuan activists ? Mr. Yupi Sobolim, Mr. Unyil Kobak, Mr. Erson Suhun, Mr. Lendeng Omu, Mr. Leni Busup, Mr. Natu Dapla,  Ms. Panggrasia Yeem, Mr. Petrus Katem, Mr. Idelfonsius Katop, Mr. Yohakim Gebze, Mr. Gento Emerikus Dop, Mr. Charles Sraun, Mr. Emilianus Nemop, Mr. Rikardo Pisakai, Mr. Oktovianus Warip, Mr. Petrus P. Koweng, Mr. Lukas Arawok, Mr. Simon Taulemi, Mr. Paustinus K. Metemko, and Mr. Moses Pasim ? were arrested in two different locations in the Papua Province of Indonesia. The arrested persons are comprised of members of and activists supporting the West Papua National Committee, as well as members of People’s Regional Parliament. The arrests were reportedly in reaction to their support of the candidacy of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua to be a full member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group.  They were reportedly subjected to a series of degrading treatment, including forced to eat dirt, strip and beaten with a hammer. Concern is expressed at the alleged excessive use of force, degrading treatment, arrest and arbitrary detention against individuals for the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression." (Human Rights Council, 08.09.2016, p. 67)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding arbitrary arrest and degrading treatment of 20 KNPB supporters

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 4/2016, (2 May 2016) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=19451

Mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples;
the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as the Vice-Chair on Communications of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 24/7, 24/9, 25/2, 24/5, and 25/18.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning allegations about the arbitrary arrest and degrading treatment of the following twenty persons: Mr. Yupi Sobolim, Mr. Unyil Kobak, Mr. Erson Suhun, Mr. Lendeng Omu, Mr. Leni Busup, Mr. Natu Dapla, Ms. Panggrasia Yeem, Mr. Petrus Katem, Mr. Idelfonsius Katop, Mr. Yohakim Gebze, Mr. Gento Emerikus Dop, Mr. Charles Sraun, Mr. Emilianus Nemop, Mr. Rikardo Pisakai, Mr. Oktovianus Warip, Mr. Petrus P. Koweng, Mr. Lukas Arawok, Mr. Simon Taulemi, Mr. Paustinus K. Metemko, and Mr. Moses Pasim.

The above named persons are either activists supporting the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), members of the KNPB or members of People’s Regional Parliament (PRD).

The KNPB is a West Papua movement pushing for a referendum on Papua’s political status that has been under increased pressure in the last four years. More than 40 members of the KNPB have been assassinated and a large number of its members have been arrested. In April 2016, the KNPB mobilized its members to participate in demonstrations across Papua to support the candidacy of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) to be a full member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Several of these demonstrations were reportedly responded to by reprisals by the police.

The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression of indigenous Papuans were the subject of joint allegations letters sent on 24 March 2016 (see case no. IDN 1/2016); 9 October 2015 (see case no. IDN 8/2015); 1 May 2014 (see A/HRC/27/72, case no. IDN 2/2014); 23 September 2013 (see A/HRC/25/74, case no. IDN 4/2013); and 24 July 2012 (see A/HRC/22/67, case no. IDN 6/2012). We acknowledge receipt of your reply of 25 September 2012. We regret that no other reply was received to these allegations.

According to the information received:

12 April 2016, Dekai junction, Papua Province

On 12 April 2016, around 8 am, West Papuan activists in support of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) distributed leaflets in Dekai. The leaflet was an invitation to attend a demonstration organized by KNPB to support the effort of United Liberation Movement for West Papua to be a full member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group. At around noon that day, three police security vehicles and the Mobile Brigade of the police arrived at the location. They pointed guns at members of the KNPB and shouted to them not to run. Some of the activists succeeded to escape. The police arrested Mr. Yupi Sobolim, Mr. Unyil Kobak, Mr. Erson Suhun, Mr. Lendeng Omu, Mr. Leni Busup and Mr. Natu Dapla.

They were taken to the Police Station in Yakuhimo where they were allegedly tortured and subjected to a series of inhuman and degrading treatments. Their heads and faces were beaten with a hammer, they were ordered to strip, eat money and dirt, do push-ups and to sing the Indonesian anthem. Their feet were tied and they were dragged across the floor while the police trampled them with boots. The police allegedly proceeded with threats to torture, to hang and to kill them. They were all released later the same day.

The police also confiscated one KNPB flag, 7 motorcycles and 3 million Indonesian Rupiah (equivalent to 228 USD) that had been donated by passer-by supporting the initiative.

13 April 2016, Merauke, Papua Province

At approximately 8:00 am on 13 April 2016, around 100 police officers came to the joint offices of the Parliament of People of Merauke Regency (PRD) and Secretariat of West Papua National Committee (KNPB). The police were fully armed and were accompanied by two police vehicles meant to control demonstration.

The police entered the building and arrested 14 persons, namely: Ms. Panggrasia Yeem; Mr. Petrus Katem; Mr. Idelfonsius Katop; Mr. Yohakim Gebze; Mr. Gento Emerikus Dop; Mr. Charles Sraun; Mr. Emilianus Nemop; Mr. Rikardo Pisakai; Mr. Oktovianus Warip; Mr. Petrus P. Koweng; Mr. Lukas Arawok; Mr. Simon Taulemi; Mr. Paustinus K. Metemko; and Mr. Moses Pasim. They are all members of the West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, KNPB) and People’s Regional Parliament (Parlemen Rakyat Daerah, PRD) of Merauke Regency.

The above named persons were brought to Merauke police station for further interrogation. They were all released later the same day.

The police also confiscated equipment, including six motorcycles, one hard disc, two loud speakers, one phone, one donation box, one whiteboard, one box Referendum’s stimulation and several posters.

Grave concern is expressed about the alleged excessive use of force, violence, harassment and arbitrary arrest as measures of retaliation and intimidation against the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of West Papuan activists. Serious concern is expressed about what appears to be a crackdown on individuals and organisations that support the West Papua movement in the country.

Concern is further expressed about the broader impact of the above allegations, and the deterrent effect they may have on the rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association in the country.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Reference to international law Annex attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

As it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Please provide any additional information and any comments you may have on the allegations described in this letter.

2. Please provide information concerning the legal grounds for the arbitrary arrest, use of force and the humiliating treatment against Mr. Yupi Sobolim, Mr. Unyil Kobak, Mr. Erson Suhun, Mr. Lendeng Omu, Mr. Leni Busup and Mr. Natu Dapla, and explain how these are compatible with international human rights norms and standards, in particular articles 7, 9, 14, 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

3. Please provide information concerning the legal grounds for the arbitrary arrest of Ms. Panggrasia Yeem; Mr. Petrus Katem; Mr. Idelfonsius Katop; Mr. Yohakim Gebze; Mr. Gento Emerikus Dop; Mr. Charles Sraun; Mr. Emilianus Nemop; Mr. Rikardo Pisakai; Mr. Oktovianus Warip; Mr. Petrus P. Koweng; Mr. Lukas Arawok; Mr. Simon Taulemi; Mr. Paustinus K. Metemko; and Mr. Moses Pasim, and explain how these are compatible with international human rights norms and standards, in particular articles 9, 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.

4. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examination, judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to the above allegations. If there have been no such investigations or inquiries, please explain why.

5. Please provide information about whether any compensation has been given as a result of the above allegations.

6. Please provide information about the legal grounds for confiscating equipment and other assets belonging to the above-mentioned persons and their organizations, including information about whether these items have been returned.

7. Please provide information about any measures adopted to ensure that the legitimate rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association respected and that the physical and psychological integrity of Papuans, and others exercising these rights, is guaranteed.

We would appreciate receiving a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the re-occurrence the alleged violations and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations.

In addition, we would like to draw your Excellency’s Government’s attention to paragraph 23 of the methods of work of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, according to which, “after having transmitted an urgent appeal or an allegation letter to the Government, the Working Group may transmit the case through its regular procedure in order to render an opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary or not”. Such appeals —considered by the Working Group to be of a purely humanitarian nature — in no way prejudge any opinion the Working Group may render. The Government is required to respond separately for the urgent action procedure and the regular procedure.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

José Guevara
Vice-Chair on behalf of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Victoria Lucia Tauli-Corpuz
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Michel Forst
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders” (Human Rights Council, 2 May 2016)

 

 Special Procedures Communication regarding arbitrary arrest and degrading Pertussis Outbreak in Nduga Regency

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 3/2016, (22 April 2016) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15938

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food;
the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;
and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as  Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest  attainable standard of physical and mental health; and Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 22/9, 24/6, and 24/9.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the alleged preventable deaths of 51 children and 3 adults as a result of a Pertussis epidemic, which predominately affected the indigenous Papuans of Nduga Regency in Papua Province. Both national and local government institutions reportedly failed to adequately prevent, treat and control the Pertussis epidemic.

According to the information received:

Between November 2015 and 5 January 2016, 51 children and 3 adults reportedly died of Pertussis (whooping cough) in the districts Mbua, Dal and Mbulu Yalma, Nduga Regency, Papua Province, Indonesia. The Ndgua Regency is one of the most remote regencies in the central highlands  of Papua Province. The population largely consists of indigenous Papuans living in small villages with restricted transportation accessibility due to them being surrounded by primary mountain rainforest.
Functioning health care centres and  adequate health care personnel are reportedly scarce or inoperative in all three districts.

It is reported that, in October 2015, people living in these districts were severely affected by the weather phenomenon El Niño. This phenomenon, which is likely associated with climate change, resulted in extremely dry and cold climate in the West Papua region. Particularly in the Papuan highlands, these weather conditions had a grave impact on food supply and subsistence of the indigenous peoples as they caused crop damage and the death of livestock.

The cold weather and food shortages reportedly aggravated the existing chronic malnutrition of the indigenous peoples in Nduga Regency and hence further weakened their immune system. This left especially children at high risk of disease and infections.

In combination with limited access to clean water and proper ventilation, the malnutrition facilitated a fast spreading of the airborne Bordetella Pertussis bacteria, which caused pneumonia and eventually lead to the deaths of three adults and 51 children under the age of ten.

Since Pertussis is typically not fatal, it is alleged that the 54 deaths were preventable and the result of government neglect. Although the Pertussis epidemic was declared a health emergency by the Indonesian Ministry of Health, relevant local and national institutions reportedly failed to adequately respond to the situation and to adopt measures aimed at stopping the epidemic or addressing its underlying determinants. Furthermore, it is alleged that the local indigenous community was unable to effectively prevent or treat the disease because adequate medical treatment, medication and preventive vaccination for the Pertussis bacteria were unavailable in the affected districts.

Finally, it is alleged that the 54 deaths occurred in the context of a poorly managed health care system which discriminates against the indigenous Papuans with respect to the delivery of health services.

As part of Papua’s special autonomy status, considerable funds are provided to local governments for the improvement of infrastructure, education and health services. However, despite the availability of resources, most indigenous villages in Papua Province do not have functioning healthcare centres and lack even the most basic medical services, equipment and personnel. This is reflected in the disproportionately high mortality rates and disease incidence in these areas.

The main reasons for the lack of adequate health services allegedly include the misallocation of funds and the mismanagement by local health and social institutions; the widespread absenteeism of health care workers in remote areas; and the failure of the Indonesian Government to hold local authorities accountable. This has reportedly contributed to a widespread mistrust of the indigenous Papuans towards government services.

While we do not wish to prejudice the accuracy of these allegations, we express grave concern at the alleged deaths of 51 children and three adults from Pertussis. We express particular concern as these deaths appear to be the result of the failure of national and local government institutions to ensure the provision of adequate health facilities, goods and services without discrimination. Finally, serious concern is expressed at the adverse impact the poorly managed health care system in Papua has on the indigenous peoples, in particular children.

We would also like to reiterate the observations made by the CESCR Committee upon review of the initial State party report of Indonesia in 2014 (E/C.12/IDN/CO/1, para.12), whereby the Committee expressed concern ‘that the minimum essential levels of economic, social and cultural rights are not guaranteed in remote islands and areas in Papua and other parts of the country, primarily due to unavailability and poor quality of public services, including in education and health.’ The Committee recommended that the State party ‘accelerate the delivery of quality public services in remote islands and areas in Papua and other parts of the country, by allocating the necessary human and financial resources, by monitoring that they reach the intended beneficiaries, and by clearly defining the responsibilities of the various levels of Government’.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Reference to international law Annex attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

It is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. We would therefore be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Please provide any additional information and comment which you may have on the above mentioned allegations.

2. Please provide detailed information on any measures taken by national and local government institutions to prevent, treat and control the Pertussis epidemic, in compliance with Indonesia’s international obligations regarding the right to health. Specifically, kindly indicate what measures have been put in place to improve preventive immunizations.

3. Please indicate any measures taken to ensure that local authorities are held accountable for their failure to provide essential health facilities, goods and services.

4. Please provide detailed information on measures taken to ensure, without discrimination, the provision of adequate health facilities, goods and services in Papua Province as required by international human rights law and standards. In particular, please provide information on any measures adopted to ensure that indigenous peoples can fully enjoy the right to health, including the right to be actively involved in developing and determining culturally sensitive health strategies and programmes affecting them.

5. Please provide information about any programmes or strategies designed to ensure the presence of qualified medical and health care personnel in remote are as as provided for, inter alia, in the international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

6. Please provide information on any mitigation and adaption measures taken with a view to helping affected communities, including indigenous peoples, cope with the intensified effects of climate change on their ability to fully enjoy the right to health.

7. Please provide information on what measures have been taken to address the structural causes of poverty and food insecurity of indigenous Papuans in Nduga Regency in a sustainable and long-term manner.

We would appreciate receiving a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person(s) responsible for the alleged violations.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Hilal Elver
Special Rapporteur on the right to food

Dainius Pūras
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

Victoria Lucia Tauli-Corpuz
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples” (Human Rights Council, 22 April 2016)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding excessive use of force, torture and killing during commemoration of 1st December

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 1/2016, (24 March 2016) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=16110

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples;
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions;
and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/2, 24/5, 24/9, 26/12, and 25/13.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the alleged use of excessive force, torture, killing, arbitrary arrest and charging of individuals celebrating West Papuan National Day in an attempt to restrict their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression on 1 December 2015.

The four individuals killed were Mr. Yonas Manitori, Mr. Herik Manitori, Mr. Yulianus Robaha and Mr. Darius Andiribi.

Ten of the individuals injured were Mr. Niko Suhun (shot in the head), Mr. Zet Tabuni, Mr. Paulinus Wororoai (shot in the ribs), Mr. Zakarias Torobi (shot in the leg), Mr. Yance Manitori (shot in the ankle), Mr. Agus Manitori (shot in the leg), Mr. Daud Ayomi (shot in the hand), Mr. Pilemon Ayomi (shot in the shoulder), Mr. Alius Karimati (shot in the hand) and Mr. Anton Runaweri (shot in the neck).

The two individuals charged with criminal offences were Mr. Enos Suhun and Mr. Eliakim Itlay.

Excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly by indigenous Papuans were the subject of joint allegation letters sent on 9 October 2015 (see case no. IDN 8/2015); 1 May 2014 (see A/HRC/27/72, case no. IDN 2/2014); 23 September 2013 (see A/HRC/25/74, case no. IDN 4/2013); and 24 July 2012 (see A/HRC/22/67, case no. IDN 6/2012). We acknowledge receipt of your reply of 25 September 2012. We regret that no other reply was received.

According to the information received:

The 1 May and 1 December are considered national days for indigenous Papuans, who commemorate the administrative transfer of West Papua to Indonesia in 1963. The Morning Star flag is associated with the Papuan community and often used to commemorate the Papuan National Day.

On 1 December 2015, several demonstrations and events were held in various locations across the country to commemorate this day in Nabire, Jakarta and Yapen Island.

Nabire, Papua Province

On 28 November 2015, individuals cleared a site at the Bunga Bangsa Papua Field in preparation for a prayer service to commemorate Papuan National Day. Security forces arrived at the site and detained 17 individuals overnight, releasing them the next day without charge.

On 1 December 2015, individuals assembled to attend the planned prayer service at the Bunga Bangsa Papua Field and security officers forcibly dispersed the crowd, using rifle butts and wooden beams. Security forces detained and interrogated 32 individuals and later released them without charge.

Central Jakarta, Jakarta Special Capital Region

On 1 December 2015, individuals commemorating the Papuan National Day gathered at multiple meeting points in Jakarta to conduct a march through the city towards the Presidential Palace. All the demonstrations were contained and ended by security officers reportedly using excessive force and violence. Legal representatives failed in attempts to negotiate with the police to allow the demonstrations to take place.

At demonstrations near the Hotel Indonesia traffic roundabout, demonstrators attempted to break out of the security forces’ blockade and security forces responded with tear gas, throwing stones and sticks, as well as firing one rubber bullet at demonstrators, which hit Mr. Niko Suhun in the head. Mr. Niko Suhun dropped to the ground immediately and security officers continued to beat him with batons on the ground. Mr. Zet Tabuni attempted to assist Mr. Niko Suhun and was also beaten by police officers, including being punched on the temple by a security officer wearing a knuckleduster. Mr. Niko Suhun remains in a critical condition at the National Brain Centre Hospital in Jakarta. Security officers contained the demonstration using violence for several more hours, reportedly kicking and beating the demonstrators with rattan canes. In a separate instance, security forces attempted to remove clothing from individuals, as well as banners and flags, displaying the Morning Star flag. Two women suffered sexual abuse from security officers, which included being forced to take off their clothes and subjected to molestation by security officers. Reportedly, a total of 133 people suffered injuries from tear gas inhalation and violence during the demonstrations in Jakarta.

At approximately midday, demonstrators at the various meeting points near Hotel Indonesia traffic roundabout were coerced on to buses and so-called crowd control vehicles that transported them to Jakarta Metro Police Headquarters (also known as “Polda Metro Jaya”), where they were detained and interrogated. Reportedly, a total of 306 demonstrators were arrested in Jakarta, including student members of the Papuan Student Alliance (also known as “Aliansi Mahasiswa Papua”). It is
reported that most of the demonstrators were released on the same day. Two demonstrators, namely Mr. Enos Suhun and Mr. Eliakim Itlay, remained in detention until 4 December 2015, after being charged under the Indonesian Criminal Code with violence against persons or property, incitement, violence or threat of violence against a state officer and maltreatment. The charges against them have subsequently been dropped.

Additionally, journalists were prevented from reporting on the demonstrations in Jakarta, including Ms. Stephanie Vaessen of Al Jazeera, who was forced to delete recorded footage of the violence used against demonstrators by the police. Police subsequently apologized to Ms. Vaessen for the conduct.

Yapen Island, Papua Province

On 1 December 2015, villagers from Wanampompi village in the Anggaisera District were holding their annual commemorative celebrations for Papuan National Day, which included raising the Morning Star flag and a prayer service. Reportedly, at 6:00am on 1 December 2015, security forces conducted a patrol across the Anggaisera District. Mr. Yonas Manitori, a local villager, approached the patrol to question its purpose. He was shot and killed. Attempting to come to the aid of Mr. Manitori, two other villagers, namely Mr. Herik Manitori and Mr. Yulius Robaha, were both shot in their legs. Mr. Herik Manitori and Mr. Yulius Robaha were forced into trucks and tortured to death. Mr. Herik Manitori’s stomach was torn open with a bayonet blade and his eyes were damaged. Allegedly further live rounds were fired at villagers, resulting in the death of Mr. Darius Andiribi and seriously injuring eight other villagers, including Mr. Paulinus Wororoai, Mr. Zakarias Torobi, Mr. Yance Manitori, Mr. Agus Manitori, Mr. Daud Ayomi, Mr. Pilemon Ayomi, Mr. Alius Karimati and Mr. Anton Runaweri.

Grave concern is expressed about the alleged motivation for the aforementioned violations is an attempt to stifle the rights of individuals celebrating Papuan National Day by restricting their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. In particular, serious concern is expressed for the alleged excessive use of force, torture and violence, which resulted in the injury of 141 individuals and the death of four individuals.

Additional concern is expressed for the alleged arbitrary arrest and detention of 355 individuals and the charges against Mr. Enos Suhun and Mr. Eliakim Itlay that have subsequently been dropped. Concern is also expressed about the measures adopted in an attempt to prevent journalists from reporting on the demonstrations and violence.

Serious concern is expressed about the alleged pattern of violence and intimidation of Papuan people and individuals celebrating Papuan National Day. Further concern is expressed for the chilling effect that these measures may have on other individuals commemorating Papuan National Day and celebrating Papuan culture, restricting the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of expression and opinion, as well as the right to cultural life.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Reference to international law Annex attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

As it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Please provide any additional information and any comments you may have on the allegations described in this letter.

2. Please provide information concerning the legal grounds for the use of force against the demonstrators and how these are compatible with international human rights law.

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to the above allegations. If there have been no such investigations or inquiries, please explain why.

4. Please provide information about any measures adopted to ensure that the legitimate rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are respected and that the physical and psychological integrity of Papuans, and others exercising these rights, is guaranteed, especially of those with dissenting opinions.

We would appreciate a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the re-occurrence the alleged violations and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Victoria Lucia Tauli-Corpuz
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples

Christof Heyns
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Juan E. Méndez
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Human Rights Council, 24 March 2016)
 

 

2015

Press Briefing by UN High Commissioners Spokesperson on 5 countries

 Reference: United Nations, Department of Public Information, Press briefing note on South Sudan, Yemen, Angola, Indonesia and Republic of Moldova (12 May 2015), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15948&LangID=E.

Indonesia

We welcome the decision last weekend by the President of Indonesia to grant clemency to five Papuan political prisoners as well as his announcement that foreign journalists will now be allowed to visit Papua.

The High Commissioner is very much encouraged by these initial but significant steps. He encourages the President to pursue his efforts toward reconciliation in Papua by reviewing the remaining cases of political prisoners with a view to their release." (High Commissioner on Human Rights 12.05.2015)

 

Communications from Special Procedures (FoAss)

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai Addendum Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received, A/HRC/29/25/ADD.3 (10 June 2015), available from http://undocs.org/A/HRC/29/25/ADD.3.

 “Indonesia
 
JAL 01/05/2014. Case no: IDN 2/2014,State reply: None. 
 
Alleged violent dispersal of a demonstration in Jayapura, West Papua and reported arrests and torture of two student protestors. 

[...] 
 
Observations
 
Responses to communications
 
The Special Rapporteur regrets that he did not receive replies to date to his communications and reiterates that responses to his communications are an important part of the cooperation of Governments. He looks forward to receiving detailed responses to the questions raised in them, in at the earliest possible convenience, in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
 
Negative obligation of the State to not unduly interfere with these rights
 
The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Indonesia to take measures to put in place an enabling environment for associations to operate safely and for protests to take place free from undue restrictions. He remains concerned about the reported excessive use of force during peaceful assemblies in Waena and Abepura in April 2014 and about the denial to register an association and to authorize it to organize a rally  in Jakarta in May 2014 (IDN 1/2014). He recalls that the State committed to protecting and promoting rights set forth in international law and standards, including in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acceded by Indonesia on 23 February 2006 that provides for the rights to freely associate and assemble. He reaffirms that while assemblies can be subject to certain restrictions, which are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, there should be a presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies and prohibitions should be measures of last resort. In this context, he believes that a swift notification procedure to hold a peaceful assembly complies better with international standards, whereas other requirements can lead to undue interference. Similarly, he is of the view that authorities should automatically grant associations legal personality as soon as notified (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 28)." (Human Rights Council 10.06.2015, p. 49)

 

UNDP's Country Programme Indonesia (2016-2020)

Reference: United Nations, Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for Project Services, Country programme document for Indonesia (2016 – 2020), DP/DCP/IDN/3 (25 June 2015), available from http://undocs.org/DP/DCP/IDN/3.

“Vulnerable, low-income and food-insecure people still face significant barriers to improving their livelihoods. Approximately 65 million Indonesians remain highly vulnerable to shocks. Poverty is high in provinces such as Papua and West Papua with rates of 28 and 26 percent  respectively. Although overall unemployment is on the decline, the picture is different for vulnerable groups: the youth unemployment rate is 22 percent; women constitute the majority of the unemployed (the unemployment rate is 6 per cent for men and 9 per cent for women); people with disabilities and customary law communities are overrepresented among the unemployed; and barriers exist for other minority groups to gain and retain employment. The poor are also the most vulnerable to disasters: 4 of the 10 most disaster-prone provinces have the lowest human development indices. The absence of energy infrastructure is one of the causes of disparity in economic development. Indonesia’s electrification ratio is 84.35 per cent, with 40 million people, mainly poor and in remote areas, without electricity. An estimated 24.5 million households rely on firewood for cooking, resulting in an estimated 165,000 premature deaths due to indoor air pollution. These challenges stem from causes such as (a) human resource constraints caused by the limited accessibility to and poor quality of education that keep the poor from accessing decent employment; (b) limited availability of decent, sustainable jobs; and (c) a low property ownership rate, especially among women and customary law communities.” (Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for Project Services 25.06.2015, p. 2f)


“UNDP will target poor and near-poor women – particularly those based in rural areas – and poor forest-dependent people who live on less than $2 per day. Approximately 17 million smallholder farmers will be prioritized. UNDP will target provinces lagging furthest behind in HDI and Millennium Development Goal achievement, including East Nusa Tenggara and Papua. UNDP will also focus on urban slum dwellers, people with disabilities and people living with HIV and AIDS. Gender analysis will be a mandatory component of all country programme components.” (Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for Project Services 25.06.2015, p. 4)


“UNDP will collaborate with the International Labour Organization (ILO), non-governmental organizations, banks and local government to promote livelihood development in remote regions. UNDP will help to establish and strengthen existing local economic development agencies (LEDAs), multi-stakeholder institutions that facilitate policy, regulatory and institutional changes to promote local economic development. In the long term, LEDAs will help reduce poverty by improving the environment for job creation and increasing the market competitiveness of targeted  groups. Learning from past work in Papua, UNDP will advocate and support local governments to collaborate with local banks and non-profit intermediaries to expand access to capital and provide business support and training to small and medium enterprises and Orang Asli Papua (Papuan people).” (Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for Project Services 25.06.2015, p. 5)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding excessive use of force resulting in the death of nine Papuans

 

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 8/2015, (9 October 2015) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=19578

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples;
and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions;

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/2, 24/5, 24/9, 26/12.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning a series of incidents of excessive use of force by Indonesian security forces in Papua Province, which resulted in the killing of nine individuals and injury to several persons. The persons killed include Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. Simon Degei, Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. Yulianus Okoare, Mr Imanuel Marimau, Mr. [name has been anonymized], and Mr [name has been anonymized].

According to the information received:

Ipakiye Village, Paniai District, Papua Province

On 8 December 2014 at 1:30 am, three young indigenous men were on guard at a Chrismas hut  in Ipakiye Village, Paniai, District, in papua Province. They yelled at a ‘Black Fortuner’ - type vehicle which was passing through the village, calling on it to switch on its headlights. Two members of the 753rd Battalion ‘Arga Vira Tama’ (AVT) were in the vehicle on their way to their command post located in Uwibutu Village. Shortly afterwards, the two members of the 753rd Battalion quickly went to the Christmas hut with other soldiers, shooting in the air and looking for the three young men. By then, two of them had left, and the third one, Mr. [name has been anonymized] was there. The soldiers seized him and beat him until unconscious.

At approximately 9.00 am on the same day, after having heard the news about Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s beating, the villagers of Ipakiye and Madi erected road blocks near the Christmas hut in Ipakiye. This action drew further attention from the army personnel, who went to the scene in a ‘B;ack Fortuner’ vehicle, which the villagers believed to be the same as that involved in the initial incident. The villagers stopped and damaged the vehicle. In response, the soldiers destroyed the Christmas hut. After this incident, the villagers marched in Waita (traditional Papua marching with songs and chants) towards Enarotali (about 5 km from Ipakiye). They wanted to ask for clarification from the Local Army Command and the Police Station in Enarotali regarding the beating of Mr. [name has been anonymized]. The crowd was surrounded by security forces who opened fire on them. Four villagers , all high school students from Enarotali were killed: Mr. [name has been anonymized], aged 17, Mr. [name has been anonymized], aged 17, Mr. Simon Degei, aged 18 and Mr. [name has been anonymized], aged 17. Seventeen others were also seriously injured.

Following the incident, the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) established a specific team (Paniai Team) to to investigate the case. After four months of work, the Commission found evidence of serious human rights violations as defined in Law No. 26/2000 on the Human Rights Court, and recommended the establishment of an ad-hoc team or Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights Violations (KPP HAM).

Desa Ugapuga, Kamu Timur District, Dogiyai Regency, Papua Province

On 25 June 2015, at 6.30 pm, 10 youth were hunting with a dog along the road in Desa Ugapuga, an indigenous community in Kamu District, Dogiyai Regency, in Papua Province. The dog was run-over by a truck. At 8.00 pm, the youngsters began stopping vehicles passing on the road where the dog was killed and forced drivers to pay a monetary fee for the loss of their dog. Some of the drivers reported the incident to the police station in Waghete, Enarotali. At 10.00 pm, a car with Indonesian security force onboard arrived at the place of the incident. Two young men approached it, Mr. [name has been anonymized], a third year high school student from Desa Ugapuga, and Mr. [name has been anonymized], a recent graduated of junior high school from Desa Ugapuga. Without warning, one of the soldiers got out of the car and shot Mr. [name has been anonymized] twice. The student tried to escape but was shot twice again. The perpetrator allegedly opened Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s deadly wounds with a bayonet to give the impression that he had died from an injury other than gunshots. Mr. [name has been anonymized] together with another eight youngsters, also tried to escape, but was wounded in the hand with a bayonet.  At 10.30 pm, the people from the town heard the news and came to the place of the incident where they found Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s dead body with two bullets penetrations. They also collected a bullet casing stamped ‘PT PIN 558’, which may be used by the Mobile Brigade of the Indonesian Police Force.

On 26 June 2015, the Sub-District Commander of the Police from Moanemani Police Station and his staff visited Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s family. They offered to conduct an autopsy on the victim;s body. The relatives refused as they were afraid that the police would falsify the autopsy and conclude that the victim died from bayonet injuries and not from firearms. The family stated that Mr. [name has been anonymized] was unarmed at the time of the incident.

On 27 June 2015, a joint investigation team composed of Mobile Brigade, the Criminal Investigation Agency and the doctor visited the family four times to receive authorization for the autopsy and to request that they return the bullets found in Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s body and the bullet shell casings. The family refused.

On 28 June 2015, the Police and the joint investigation team returned to Desa Ugapuga and summoned Mr. [name has been anonymized] for the reconstruction of the incident and further investigation.

Karubaga, Tolikara Regency, Papua Province

On 17 July 2015 at 7.00 am, several youth from the Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI) went to the Baitul Mutaqin mosque in Karubaga, Tolikara Regency, in Papua Province, in order to ask not to use the loudspeaker at the time of prayer since it was interfering with an ongoing youth seminar at the church. The people in the mosque refused to turn off the loudspeaker. As a result, the youths from GIDI started throwing stones at the mosque and burned some nearby stalls and houses which subsequently led to the burning of the mosque. Indonesian National Police officers were dispatched to the scene and opened fire on the youth which resulted in the killing of a 15 year-old boy, Mr. [name has been anonymized], and injury to 11 others.

On 24 July 2015, Papua Police arrested two people for instigation the riot. Their place of detention and the charges against them are not known.

The incident was investigated by (Komnas HAM). On 10 August 2015, the Commission announce that it had found four human rights violations regarding the killing of Mr. [name has been anonymized], including the right to life, right to security, right to housing and right to worship. It is not known whether any official investigation has been conducted into the incident, including the shooting of the youngsters by the police, which resulted in one death and many injuries.

Bayangkara, Timika, Mimika Regency, Papua Province

On 28 August 2015, around 2.30 pm, two soldiers from the Indonesian army (Tentara Nasional Indonesia – TNI) rode a motorcycle past a crowd of 100 people who were having a party along Bayangkara Street in Timika, Mimika Regency, in Papua Province. The crowd reprimanded the soldiers fro driving too fast and told them to drive slower along the road. Minutes later, three more soldiers on motorcycles arrived. The situation escalated and the soldiers opened fire on the people. People ran for safety but two were killed and four others were seriously injured by the gunshots. Mr. Yulianus Okoare, aged 18, died at the scene and Mr. Imanuel Marimau, aged 23, died later at Mimika hospital. The persons who were critically injured were taken to Mimika hospital. It is unclear whether any investigation into this incident has been opened against the soldiers  responsible for the shooting.

GorongGorong, Timika, Mimika Regency, Papua Province

On 28 September 2015, around 7,00 pm, Mr. [name has been anonymized], aged 17, and Mr. [name has been anonymized], aged 17, were sitting in a tower in Bial residential housing complex in GorongGorong, Timika, Mimika Regency, in Papua Province. The two students were reported to the police as troublemakers and their fathers were accused of being members of the Free West Papua Movement (OPM). Police trucks came into the complex and policemen asked for Mr [name has been anonymized] and Mr. [name has been anonymized]. Ten minutes later, policemen on 15 motorcycles and three police cars surrounded the complex. Mr. [name has been anonymized] and Mr. [name has been anonymized] tried to run away and the police opened fire on them. Both young men were injured and transferred to the Mimika hospital. Mr. [name has been anonymized] died from his injuries and Mr. [name has been anonymized] remains in a critical condition.

After the incident, the members of the Provincial Police of Papua visited Mr. [name has been anonymized] in hospital. They also spoke with the family of the victim. They informed them that the three police officers from Mimika Baru Sector were under investigation.

According to the allegations, the killing may have been politically motivated. Mr. [name has been anonymized]’s father, [name has been anonymized], is a priest at the local Papuan Evangelical Kingmi Church and a member of the West Papuan National Committee (KNPB) Timika, a West Papua non-violent movement which is pushing for a referendum on Papua’s political status. It is reported that between 20110 and 2014, 40 KNPB members have been killed by the police, security forces and the army. Reports also indicate that between 2006 and September 2015, nine students have allegedly been killed by Indonesian military police (TNI) in Timika.

According to reports, extrajudicial and summary executions by Indonesian security forces in the provinces Papua and West Papua take place regularly. The rate of executions has not fallen for several despite many allegations of a change in the approach by authorities. In all cases of extrajudicial executions in Papua and West Papua in the last two years, the victims have been indigenous Papuans despite the fact that Indigenous Papuans make up less than 45 per cent of the population.

We express grave concern at what appears to be a pattern of excessive use of force by Indonesian security forces against indigenous peoples in Papua Province, which has resulted in the killing of nine persons and injuries to many others. In several instances, they were exercising peacefully their right to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly and association. We are further concerned that the alleged use of firearms and excessive force by Indonesian law enforcement personnel appears to target primarily members of indigenous communities.

 While we do not wish to prejudice the accuracy of these allegations, they indicate a prima facie violation of the right of every individual to life and security and not to be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, as well as the right to freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly as set forth in the articles 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 6 (1), 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The excessive use of force directed against members of the indigenous population of Papua would also contravene several key provisions of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular articles 1,2 and 7 regarding equality of rights, non-discrimination, and protection of life, integrity, security and liberty.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Reference to international law Annex attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

As it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts in the summary of the cases accurate? Please provide any additional information and any comment you may have on the allegations described in this letter

2. Please provide the full details of any investigation which have been undertaken concerning the cases described above of excessive use of force by Indonesian security forces, and in particular with regards to the killings of Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. Simon Degei, Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. [name has been anonymized], Mr. Yulianus Okoare, Mr. Imanuel Marimau, Mr. [name has been anonymized] and Mr. [name has been anonymized]. Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

3. Please, indicate whether compensation has been provided to the victims and their families.

4. Please provide details regarding the recommendations and decisions adopted by the National Human Rights Commission with regards to the alleged violations occurred in Paniai district and in Tolikara Regency, and the steps undertaken to ensure their full implementation.

5.  Please indicate what measures have been taken to ensure that the legitimate rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are respected and that the physical and psychological integrity of those exercising these rights is guaranteed in the provinces of Papua and West Papua.

6. Please indicate measures adopted by the Government of Indonesia, in terms of policy, legislation, regulations and practices to ensure that law enforcement personnel operating in Papua do exercise their duties in an equal and non-discriminatory manner with regard to the province’s indigenous populations; and how the implementation of these measures are effectively monitored, controlled and their breaches sanctioned.   
 
We would appreciate a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the re-occurrence the alleged violations and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Victoria Lucia Tauli-Corpuz
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples

Christof Heyns
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (Human Rights Council, 9 October 2015)

 

  Special Procedures Communication regarding threats against Papuan human rights defender Theo Hesegem

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 7/2015, (8 September 2015) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=13291

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/2, 24/5, and 25/18.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the alleged threats and intimidation of human  rights defender Mr. Theo Hesegem.

Mr Theo Hesegem is the head of the Advocacy Network for Uholding Law and Human Rights of Papua Central Highlands  (Jaringan Advokasi Penegakan Hukum dan Ham Pegunungan Tengah Papua, JAPHAM) and the chair of the Coalition Team for Justice, Law and Human Rights on the Central Highlands of Papua (Tim Koalisi untuk Perdamaian, Hukum dan HAM Pegunungan Tengah). He is engaged in investigative reporting on serious human rights violation occurring in the central highlands of West Papua, and provides assistance to victims of human rights violations. Mr. hesegem was the subject of a previous communication set to your Excellency’s Government on 12 September 2014, case number IDN 4/2014, see A/HRC/28/85. We regret that to date no response has been received  to this communication.

According to the information received:

In May 2015, Mr. Theo Hesegem, received a threatening text message from an unkonwn number following the arrest and torture of a Papuan man by local police. The text message sated:”Don’t cry out the victim or his torture just because  you are a human rights defender. You don’t know when your turn will come to be tortured and experience the same misery.” In the same month, Mr. Hesegem received a threatening phone call from the Chief of the Jayawijaya Regional Police, [name has been anonymized] 

On 21 June 2015, Mr. Hesegem accompanied a family as they visited  their severely injured relative in hospital. The relative was being in intensive care after having been shot three times by Wamena police. Upon arrival at the hospital, Mr Hesgem requested that the police guarding the relative wait outside the emergency room in order to allow the family to make their visit. A sort while later, the Chief of the Regional Police Mr. [name has been anonymized] arrived at the hospital and demanded that Mr Hesegem leave. Subsequently, on 4 July 2015, the Chief of the Regional Police was quoted in an article in a local newspaper referring to the hospital visit. He allegedly stated that Mr. Hesegem had been the provocateur in the incident, and had driven policemen from the hospital on the date in question.

On 28 July 2015, Mr. Hesegem, along with human rights defenders from the Coalition Team for Justice, Law and Human Rights, accompanied the abovementioned man during a pre-trial hearing in Wamena District Court. It is  alleged thet the pre-trial hearing was attended by dozens of police officers in an attempt to intimidate Mr. Hesgem and other members of the Coalition Team for Justice, Law and Human Rights.

On 8 August 2015, Mr. Hesegem met with the chief of National Police in jakarta and reported his alleged harassment by local and regional police.

Concern is expressed at the threats made against Mr. Hesegem, whoch appear to be a clear attempt to dissuade him from documenting human rights abuses committed by local and regional police in the West Papuan highlands. Furhter concern is expressed at the appartent role of the local and regional police in the on-going intimidation and harassment of Mr. Hesegem, which appears to be related to the legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression.

While we do not wish to prejudice the accuracy of these allegations,, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to the relevant international norms and standards that are applicable tp the issues brought forth by the situation described above.

it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. We would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Please provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may have on the above-mentioned allegations.

2. Has any action been taken following the complaint lodged by the victim?

3. Please indicate what measures are in place to ensure oversight of the actions of local and regional police in the province of West Papua.

4.  Please indicate what measures have been taken to ensure that the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the legitimate right to collect and disseminate information, is respected and guaranteed in Indonesia, and in particular the province of West Papua

5. Please kindly indicate what measures have been taken to ensure that human rights defenders, including members of civil society organizations, are able to carry out their legitimate work in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any sort.

6. Please provide information on measures undertaken to improve the responsiveness and effectiveness of domestic protection mechanisms available to human rights defenders, as well  as measures undertaken to ensure human rights defenders do not face retaliation after having presented complaints to the relevant authorities.

 We would appreciate receiving a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the re-occurrence the alleged violation and prevent their re-occurence and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person(s) responsible of the alleged violations.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Michel Forst
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders” (Human Rights Council, 8 September 2015)

 

2014

1st Review by the UN Committee for Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the initial report of Indonesia, E/C.12/IDN/CO/1 (19 June 2014), available from http://undocs.org/E/C.12/IDN/CO/1.


“Acknowledging the challenges posed by the geographical configuration of the State party, the Committee is concerned that the minimum essential levels of economic, social and cultural rights are not guaranteed in remote islands and areas in Papua and other parts of the country, primarily due to unavailability and poor quality of public services, including in education and health. Furthermore, the Committee expresses concern at the lack of access to remedies for violations of human rights and at the lack of comprehensive knowledge of the human rights situation in those areas (art. 2.2).

Recalling that the exercise of Covenant rights should not be conditional on, or determined by, the place of residence, and referring to Law No. 25/2009 on Public Service, the Committee calls on the State party to adopt a human rights-based approach in the implementation of the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) for 2015-2019 and to:

(a) Accelerate the delivery of quality public services in remote islands and areas in Papua and other parts of the country, by allocating the necessary human and financial resources, by monitoring that they reach the intended beneficiaries, and by clearly defining the responsibilities of the various levels of Government;

(b) Ensure that judicial remedies and non-judicial institutions, such as the State party’s national human rights institutions, are accessible in those areas;

(c) Undertake to collect information on the situation of economic, social and cultural rights of ethnic groups in highlands, remote and border islands and areas, in collaboration with the national human rights institutions and civil society organizations.

The Committee refers to the State party to its statement on poverty and the Covenant, adopted on 4 May 2001 (E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex vii).” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 4 f)


“The Committee expresses concern at violations of human rights in the mining and plantations sectors, including the right to livelihood, the right to food, the right to water, labour rights and cultural rights. It is also concerned that the free, prior and informed consent of affected communities is not always sought in these projects, including under Law 25/2007 on Investment. Moreover, even in cases where consultations of affected communities have taken place, their informed decisions have not been guaranteed.

The Committee is concerned at the lack of an adequate monitoring of the human rights and environmental impact of extractive projects during their implementation. In many cases, affected communities have not been afforded effective remedies and have, along with human rights defenders working on these cases, been subject to violence and persecution. Furthermore, it is concerned that these projects have not brought about tangible benefits for local communities (art. 1.2, 2.2, 11).

The Committee calls on the State party to review legislation, regulations and practices in the mining and plantations sectors and:

(a) Guarantee legal assistance to communities during consultations on extractive projects affecting them and their resources with a view to ensuring their free, prior and informed consent;

(b) Ensure that license agreements are subject to monitoring of human rights and environmental impact during the implementation of extractive projects;

(c) Guarantee legal assistance to communities lodging complaints about allegations of human rights violations, thoroughly investigate all allegations of breach of license agreements, and revoke licenses, as appropriate;

(d) Ensure that tangible benefits and their distribution are not left solely to the voluntary policy of corporate social responsibilities of companies, but are also defined in license agreements, in the form of employment creation and improvement of public services for local communities, among others;

(e) Engage in constant dialogue with human rights defenders, protect them from acts of violence, intimidation and harassment, and thoroughly investigate all allegations of reprisals and abuse so asto bring perpetrators to justice.” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 9 f)

“The Committee expresses concern about the large number of land disputes and cases of land-grabbing in the State party. It is also concerned that regulations such as Presidential Regulation 65/2006 on Procurement of Land for Realizing Development for Public Interest render individuals and communities vulnerable to land-grabbing as only 34 per cent of land in the State party is certified. Similarly, the Committee is concerned that court decisions on land cases have been primarily made on the basis of the existence of titles. Furthermore, the Committee expresses concern at the prohibitive cost of titling that has accompanied the settlement of land disputes (arts. 1.2, 2.2 and 11).

The Committee urges the State party to adopt a land policy which

(a) establishes an institution tasked with the oversight of settlement of land disputes;

(b) promotes settlement approaches that take into account the fact that land titles are not always available;

(c) reviews relevant laws and regulations which make individuals and communities vulnerable to land-grabbing;

(d) facilitates the titling of land without prohibitive procedural costs;

(e) secures the involvement of the national human rights institutions and the civil society.” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 10)


“The Committee is concerned that the lack of education services or their poor quality in some areas, including cases where teachers do not report to duty, leave the State party with a large number of illiterate persons. It is also concerned that measures taken by the State party, such as the deployment of less qualified teachers in remote areas, perpetuate the discriminatory situation. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at indirect costs borne by parents and at higher drop-out rates among girls (art. 13).

The Committee urges the State party to ensure quality and culturally adequate education, especially in remote areas, including by ensuring that resources invested and programmes such as the operational assistance for schools lead to effective enjoyment of the right to education. The Committee also recommends that the State party ensure that primary education is free of charge and that it take measures, including awareness-raising, to address school dropout among girls. Moreover, the Committee recommends that the State party introduce, in consultation with local communities, education in local languages where appropriate. The Committee refers the State party to its general comment No. 11 (1999) on plans of action for primary education.“ (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 12 f)

“The Committee is concerned at the absence of an effective legal protection framework of the rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat due to inconsistencies in relevant legislative provisions (arts. 15 and 2.1).

Referring to the State party’s statement that it would make use of relevant principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Committee urges the State party to expedite the adoption of the draft law on the rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat and ensure that it:

(a) Defines Masyarakat Hukum Adat and provides for the principle of self-identification, including the possibility to self-identify as indigenous peoples;

(b) Effectively guarantees their inalienable right to own, develop, control and use their customary lands and resources;

(c) Define strong mechanisms for ensuring the respect of their free, prior and informed consent on decisions affecting them and their resources, as well as adequate compensation and effective remedies in case of violation.

The Committee also recommends that the State party undertake to harmonize existing laws according to the new law on the rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat and ratify the ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1989 (No. 169).” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 13)

“The Committee is concerned at provisions of recently adopted Law No. 18/2013 on Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction as well as other laws in force in the State party which contravene the Decision 35/PUU-X/2012 of the Constitutional Court on the right of ownership of customary forests by Masyarakat Hukum Adat. It is further concerned that, while the State party has granted concessions on forested land to develop palm oil plantations, members of Masyarakat Hukum Adat have reportedly been arrested on the basis of the Law No. 18/2013 (arts. 15 and 1.2).
 
The Committee recommends that, as a priority for the implementation of the Plan of Action of the Joint Agreement for the Acceleration in the Determination of Forest Regions, the State party:

(a) Amend all legislative provisions which are incompatible with the Constitution Court Decision 35/PUU-X/2012, including those contained in the Law 18/2013 on Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, and take steps for the review of decisions against members of Masyarakat Hukum Adat based thereon; and

(b) Identify and demarcate customary lands and forests, resolve disputes thereon, in consultation with representatives of Masyarakat Hukum Adat and the national human rights institutions.” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 13f)


“The Committee is concerned that a number of languages in the State party are at risk of disappearance, in spite of the measures taken by the Language Development Agency (art. 15).

The Committee recommends that the State party pursue efforts aimed at the preservation of endangered languages, including by promoting their use and by documenting them. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party invest resources for the effective implementation of Ministry of Education and Culture Regulation No. 81/A of 2013 on the inclusion of the teaching of local languages in the primary school curricula, especially as it pertains to endangered languages.” (Economic and Social Council 19.06.2014, p. 14)

 

Replies of Indonesia on the List of Issues to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Reference: United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, List of issues in relation to the initial report of Indonesia, Addendum, Replies of Indonesia to the list of issues, E/C.12/IDN/Q/1/ADD.1 (17 April 2014), available from http://undocs.org/E/C.12/IDN/Q/1/ADD.1.


Article 1, paragraph 2 – Free disposal of natural wealth and resources 
                                 
Question  3                 

In regards to the protection of traditional entitlement to land, the Indonesian Constitution, particularly article 18b (2), stipulates that  “the State recognizes and respects Masyarakat Hukum Adat (traditional community) along with their traditional customary rights as long as this remain in existence and in accordance with the societal development and the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and shall be regulated by law”. Further, article 28I (3) provides recognition by the State to the culture identity and rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat.  

The rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat is further elaborated in Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, specifically in article 6 which stipulates that the Government has the obligation to protect the rights of Masyarakat Hukum Adat including their cultural identity and traditional land rights. Article 9 (1) of the Law sets the foundation on the collective entitlement of land by Masyarakat Hukum Adat. 

On the issue of official recognition of Masyarakat Hukum Adat customary land, the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960, article 2 (4), 3 and 5, recognizes and respects the Masyarakat Hukum  Adat customary land, as long as it is in conformity with prevailing laws and regulations and national interest. Several criteria for such entitlement includes: an evident presence of the Masyarakat Hukum Adat, an evident attachment of  Masyarakat Hukum Adat’s livelihood to the communal land, and the presence of body of norms governing the use and management of the Masyarakat Hukum Adat communal land. The said criteria are reaffirmed in Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry.

In accordance with the Guidelines to Resolve Collective Rights on Masyarakat Hukum Adat Land Issues issued by the Head of Land Agency in 1999, the determination of a communal land rights belonging to a Masyarakat Hukum Adat land is decided through an inclusive process by a Special Team consisting of the representative from the local government, Masyarakat Hukum Adat expert, representative of the Masyarakat Hukum Adat whose land is being assessed, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as representatives of related governmental ministries/institutions. The study of the Special Team serves as the basis for the issuance of by-law on recognition of the collective land right of the Masyarakat Hukum Adat, thereby strengthening the Masyarakat Hukum Adat’s legal standing upon the land in the event of a dispute or land grabbing by other parties. Examples of by-laws that recognize Masyarakat Hukum Adat lands, among others Lebak Regency By-law on Baduy Masyarakat Hukum Adat; Nunukan Regency By-law; Kampar Regency By law; Papua Province By-law; West Sumatra Province By-law, Central Kalimantan Province By-law on Kedamangan and Dayak Masyarakat Hukum Adat; Ternate By-law on Kesultanan Ternate Masyarakat Hukum Adat; Riau Province By-Law on Buluh Cina  and Riau Malay Masyarakat Hukum Adat; Maluku Province By-Law on Nagai, Petuanan, Ratshap and Ohoi Masyarakat Hukum Adat; and Malinau Regency By-Law on Malinau Masyarakat Hukum Adat. 

A recent development in the recognition and protection of Masyarakat Hukum Adat land is the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 on  the Judicial Review of Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry. The Decision has specifically recognized Masyarakat Hukum Adat forest apart from State-owned forest. 

[…] Disputes relating to Masyarakat Hukum Adat land can be reported to the Public Complaint Services of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Yankomas), BPN, and Komnas HAM. The Yankomas has followed up 99 reported cases in 2012 and 15 cases in 2013. While BPN, has handled 9 cases  through mediation process and 4 cases resolved through the State Administrative Courts in 2010-2013. According to Komnas HAM, out of the 7,000 cases received by Komnas HAM in 2013, 2,331 cases are related to both private land and Masyarakat Hukum Adat land disputes.” (Economic and Social Council 17.04.2014, p. 4 f)


“Question 4                 

The principle of “Free and Prior Informed Consent” is an integral part of the Government’s policy with regard to the use of lands for development projects. The principle requires mandatory inclusive consultations on equal footing between the community, the Government and business actors, including in approving the use and the benefit sharing of development projects involving communal lands owned by Masyarakat Hukum Adat.  

The legal framework for ensuring the respect for such principle includes Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry; Law No. 32 of 2004 on Local Governance; Law No. 18 of 2004 on Plantations; Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining; Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 98/PERMENTAN/OT.140/9/2013 on the Guidelines in the Licensing of Plantation Business. 
  
Development projects should contribute to the development of the local economy, infrastructure and sustainable use of natural resources and  environmental protection. Presidential Decree No. 26 of 2010 provides mechanism for the transparency and accountability of national and sub-national government revenues from extractive industries by  upholding the principles of social welfare, good governance, transparency, sustainable development and the involvement of various stake holders, including the Masyarakat Hukum Adat. Furthermore, in 2013, a Joint Understanding Agreement between the Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Forestry, and BPN was initiated to empower Masyarakat Hukum Adat in remote areas (KAT) through settlement regulation within and outside the forest area. This Joint Understanding Agreement aims to ensure that development projects contributes to the welfare of KAT that are based on the principles of non-discrimination, respect of the local KAT values, and accommodates the active participation of KAT in the development process.  
  
In the industrial sector, the Ministry of Industry together with the Ministry of Environment have issued regulations towards ensuring the  implementation of the free and prior informed consent principle in regards to the issuance of business icenses. The Minister of Industry Regulation No. 41 of 2008 on the Issuance of Industrial Licensing and Minister of Environment Regulation No. 11 of 2006, stipulates that licenses shall only be issued when business actors have obtained: Building License from the respective local governments; Hazard License   (Hinder Ordonantie/HO) – from the respective local government with the approval of the concerned community; Environmental Impact Analysis(AMDAL) and have provided the documentations regarding Efforts on Environmental Management (UKL) and Environmental Monitoring (UPL). The Ministry of National Development Planning has issued Regulation No. 3 of 2012 on Guidelines in the Implementation of Cooperation between the  Government and Business Entities in Providing Public Infrastructure that requires mandatory public consultations with all stakeholders including the local communities be held prior to the initiation of development projects.  

Local governments also have roles in ensuring that the issuance of business licenses in development projects are in adherence to the prevailing laws and regulations, in which the interest of local communities are well represented.” (Economic and Social Council 17.04.2014, p. 5 f)


Article 15 – Cultural rights

Question 32                 

As mentioned in paragraph 273 of the  initial report (E/C.12/IDN/1), based on Law No. 11 of 2010 on Cultural Heritage and the Law No. 5 of  1992 on Cultural Objects, the Government is mandated to preserve cultural heritage. In this regard, Indonesia has preserved 8,863 cultural  sites and objects of cultural heritage, as well as the 146 cultural conservation areas, including cultural heritage and languages of ethnic   groups and Masyarakat Hukum Adat. 

In order to create favourable conditions for the people to preserve, develop, express and disseminate identity, history, culture, language, traditions and customs, the Government has issued the following guidelines; 

(a) Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 52 of 2007 on Guidelines for Preservation and Development of Adat Customs and Socio-cultural Values of Society; 

(b) Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 39 of 2007 on Guidelines for Facilitating Social Organization of Culture, the Palace, and the Preservation of Masyarakat Hukum Adat; 

(c) Law No. 6 of 2014 on the Village which recognizes the existence of Masyarakat Hukum Adat and regulates the establishment of traditional village or Adat Village.
  
The Government has developed several cultural preservation sites such as Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (Indonesia Miniature Park) since 1975. In  addition, many local governments at the provincial and regency/city level have established cultural houses as centres to develop their local cultures. Local governments also hold a regular programme of cultural festival, among others: Lembah Baliem Festival (Papua Province), Jailolo Festival (North Maluku Province), Pasola Festival (East Nusa Tenggara Province), Raja Ampat Festival and Travel Mart (West  Papua  Province); 

[...] Furthermore, as part of the efforts to protect cultural heritage of Masyarakat Hukum Adat in remote  areas  (KAT),  the  Ministry  of  Social Affairs has established the KAT Information Centre in 2003, which serves as artefacts centre; KAT Film Centre; KAT Ethnographic Book Centre; KAT Diffusion Data Centre; and Workshop and Seminar Event Centre. Some ministries have also programmes related the preservation and development of Masyarakat Hukum Adat, such as Minister of Public Housing Regulation on Development of Housing in Cultural Heritage Areas; and  Minister of Public Works Regulation on National Strategic Areas.

In the effort to increase measures to preserve linguistic heritage and diversity, the Minister of Home Affairs issued Regulation No. 40 of 2007 on Guidelines for Head of Local Government on Preservation and Development of National Language and Local Languages. Law No. 24 of 2009 on Flag, Language, the State Emblem and Anthem further mandated the Government, to develop, preserve and protect Indonesia’s national language  and local languages. 

[…] In addition, the local government also encourages public schools to teach local language to students as compulsory local subject content.  The Minister of Education and Culture issued Regulation No. 81/A of 2013, that mandates all elementary schools to include local language in the new 2014 curriculum. The Regulation also allows the use of local language as an instruction language for grades 1 to 4 in elementary schools. 

Moreover, the Government has also made efforts to conserve and provide documentations of local languages through research and interviews with  remaining native speakers. The conservation and revitalization efforts are developed on the basis of these studies. 

To ensure the preservation of the endangered local languages, the Language Development Agency has taken steps, among others:  

(a) Documenting the language system by making analysis on the structure of the language, for example by documenting the structure of phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar, and the dictionary. The Government has also been actively compiling Indonesian local language dictionaries. There are at least dictionaries of 71 local languages which have been published, among others: Acehnese; Biaknese; Gorontalonese; Mandarese; and Sasaknese; 

(b)  Inclusion of local languages in school curriculums. In doing so, steps are taken to standardize the language, grammar, formulate dictionaries, develop teaching materials, and training of teachers; 

(c) Revitalizing activities to encourage communities to speak their native language such as holding competitions in storytelling, speech, and poetry reading; 

(d) Researching and Analyzing extinct language and their systems; 

(e) Compiling dictionaries of endangered local languages since 2013 and is expected to be completed by 2015. It is worth mentioning that not only the central government, but also local governments have compiled endangered local languages, such as Jambi Provincial Government which compiled Anak Dalam or Kubu Tribe Dictionary. 

In the effort to support heritage preservation of linguistic diversity, the Government has incorporated tribal identification code and language code in the Population Census to measure the level of extinction of a local language that can be used to set conservation policy priorities. One example is the results of the Population Census of 2010, which has identified 1,300 tribal codes and 1,000 language codes and later used as data research and compilation for the “Local Languages Map of Indonesia”. This ethnic and language codes will be updated every 5 years in the Population Census, which will be conducted in the coming year of 2015.” (Economic and Social Council 17.04.2014, p. 37 f)

 

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights hears  from Stakeholders on the Situation in Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights hears from stakeholders on situation in Ukraine and Indonesia (28 April 2014), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14547&LangID=E.

“[...] On Indonesia, areas of concern raised included violations of the rights of indigenous populations, contested land claims over customary land and forest development policies.  The Government of Indonesia’s efforts to provide nationwide healthcare coverage for all Indonesian people was commended, but challenging areas included lack of facilities and healthcare workers. Non-governmental organizations also drew to the Committee’s attention discrimination faced by domestic workers, gender-based violence suffered by women, and the situation of indigenous peoples in Papua.

[…] A representative of the National Commission on Violence against Women highlighted six key issues. First, women’s loss of their capacity to support themselves due to violence, which forced them to work in unsafe environments, such as plantation labourers, sex workers or entering into unregistered marriages. Second, the 342 discriminatory policies identified in the name of religion and morality in the post-autonomy era. Third, the discrimination faced by women with disabilities, such as polygamy being permitted if a wife was disabled. Fourth, violence and discrimination as a consequence of sexual orientation and gender identity, and stigma suffered by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Fifth, the situation of approximately 1,300 Papuan women who were marginalized, impoverished and suffering various forms of violence was raised. And sixth, exploitation and discrimination suffered by migrant workers, particularly migrant domestic workers. The Government neglected the National Commission’s report on discrimination faced by women by claiming that cases of violence against women, particularly the sexual abuse of women workers, had decreased. However, the number of complaints had actually increased, and any data fluctuation was due to the lack of victims reporting complaints.

[…] Franciscans International, in a joint statement with several other non-governmental organizations, made recommendations to the Government of Indonesia on areas including the rights of indigenous peoples, including the recognition of customary land by law, and implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent in a meaningful manner for the development and extractive projects in Papua. The Government was urged to provide awareness-raising programmes and human rights training to women at village levels, and provide shelters and other specialized services to women suffering from all forms of gender-based violence. Disaggregated data on health service statistics in Papua was needed, in order to show existing health inequalities and form a basis for a specific provincial Papuan health strategy. The quality of education in disadvantaged areas, especially rural and mountain areas, had to be improved. Finally, on cultural rights, the Papuan Customary Council should be recognized as a legitimate representative body of the Papuans, the organization said.

[…] The representative of the National Commission on Human Rights replied that there was no statistical data on how many Indonesian people were indigenous. The term ‘indigenous’ did not exist in Indonesian law. It was controversial and not widely used, as the Government had stated that ‘all Indonesians were indigenous’. The term ‘Masyarakat Adat’ was used instead, meaning ‘customary communities’. However, civil society estimated that 25 to 30 per cent of the Indonesian population could be considered indigenous using criteria including lifestyle, such as living on ancestral land, the maintenance of tradition to manage land resources differently from the rest of the population, and some communities had their own systems of economics and governance. A law to protect the rights of those people – known as the Adat communities - was currently being discussed by the Government.” (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 28.04.2014)

 

Considerations of Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regarding the Report of Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Department of Public Information, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considers report of Indonesia (01 May 2014), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14554&LangID=E.


Response from the Delegation

The delegation spoke about measures being taken to uphold the economic, social and cultural rights of the Masyarakat Hukum Adat (the traditional community) in Papua. Recognition and protection of traditional entitlement to land by Masyarakat Hukum Adat was in principle guaranteed by the Constitution, which stipulated that “the State recognized and respected Masyarakat Hukum Adat along with their traditional customary rights as long as that remained in existence and in accordance with the societal development and the principles of the Unitary State of Indonesia and shall be regulated by law.” The delegate referred to land rights, and compensation paid to traditional communities affected by the development of palm-oil plantations.

The total population of Papua was approximately 3,225,000 million. Today Papua had been developed from just nine regions into 42 regions and cities, located within two provinces (Papua and West Papua). The standard of living of Papuans had dramatically improved from 1999 until 2013, with huge reductions in levels of poverty. Poverty-reduction policies were centred on a welfare approach tied in with accelerated development. The Government also took a social-political approach, a cultural approach and an economic approach, ensuring consultation with the Papuans in drafting policies for its “UP4B” programme. Policies included reducing poverty through education, for instance by increasing the number of schools and teachers, and granting of scholarships for high school and tertiary-level education courses. Improvements in the field of health in Papua included building regional clinics as hubs for health programmes. Infrastructure was being improved to reduce the isolation of some communities, along with the aim of building cooperation between cities in Papua.

A delegate spoke about the culture of the Papuan people. There were 280 ethnic groups and languages. The population sizes of the ethnic groups varied between 1,000 to 10,000 and more. Ethnic groups had different systems of kinship; they lived in the mountains or in coastal regions, and were spread throughout the country. Since the granting of special autonomy in provinces of Papua those ethnic groups were represented in the regional parliament. Members of the People’s Parliament of Papua were directly elected from and by the people of Papua. Every ethnic community was represented, and women and religious leaders were included.

A delegate explained that some forced evictions had taken place in West Papua, in order to construct a reservoir. The land, which was owned by the regional Government, was being returned to its original purpose in order to combat flooding risk. The land had been occupied by people who did not have permission or proof of ownership. As part of its initiative the regional Government met the people concerned to explain its intentions so they could understand and agree with the development, although some people in the community did object. He recalled that some 350 families were moved to low-rent apartments, while the rest returned to their regional hometowns or other places. The land around the reservoir was currently functioning as a flood control, and being made into a recreational site.

Since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was adopted in 2007, Indonesia understood that the rights of indigenous people was a legal construct. The Government of Indonesia had been involved in the formulation of the United Nations declaration, and supported it. However, since the colonial era the Government considered that all Indonesians were indigenous people, and therefore the Declaration was not applicable in the context of Indonesia. However, that did not meant its provisions were not useful; the principle on prior and informed consent, for example, was relevant and taken into consideration.

[…] On the subject of education, a delegate spoke about human rights education which was being provided as a priority to relevant bodies, including the police force, child protection officers, other Government officials and the military. A human rights curriculum had been added to their training curriculum. For example, training had been given on handling public demonstrations with a rights-based approach.

[…] The preservation of local languages was ensured through Government decree, and since 2010 some local Governments had a policy in which they were obliged to use a local language for a full working day at least once a week, a delegate informed. Every elementary school was obliged to include local languages in their new 2014 curriculum, which ensured that local languages were the medium of instruction from at least the first to fourth grade.

The national census of 2010 included a question about local languages, and identified 1,300 ethnic codes and more than 1,000 languages in Indonesia. Local governments sought to document local languages through research and interviews with the remaining native speakers. In 2008, the Language Development Agency created a “Local Languages Map of Indonesia” to show the spread and use of local languages, and which languages were endangered, and analyse the reasons for that. The Agency issued public guidance on using endangered languages, and importantly had so far published dictionaries for at least 71 local languages.”

[…] A delegate commented on Government actions to provide education in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. The Government understood the concerns and agreed it was true that the standard of education in those regions was inadequate. Measures taken to improve the quality of education, especially for age groups around nine years old, included the provision of more teachers. In 2012, 400 teachers were additionally assigned to schools in Papua. In 2013, of the 1,960 teachers needed there were only 900 teachers. In response the regional government recruited more short-term contract teachers. More widely, high-school graduates were being encouraged to go into teaching as a profession. The number of illiterate people in Papua was huge, but the Government aimed to get more than 20,000 students into education by 2017.

It was inaccurate that 50 per cent of teachers did not report for school in Papua, a delegate said. He went on to speak about incentives for teachers and ways of encouraging them to work in certain regions.” (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 01.05.2014) 

 

 CESCR list of Issues to the initial report of Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, List of issues in relation to the initial report of Indonesia  (20 December 2013), available from here

"Article 1, paragraph 2 – Free disposal of natural wealth and resources

Please provide information on the framework for protecting the right of indigenous populations, including Masyarakat Adat, to their customary lands, and on the process through which their customary lands and forests are officially recognized. Please also provide information on concrete measures taken by the State party to address the increasing incidence of land-grabbing, as well as examples of cases where such measures have been effective at preventing land-grabbing.

Please indicate how the principle of free and prior informed consent is guaranteed in law and in practice, in decisions on – and the implementation of – development and extractive projects affecting communities.

Please provide information on the existing regulatory framework and processes for ensuring that development and extractive projects bring tangible benefits to communities. Please also provide information on the process by which the State party responds to reports of human rights violations, loss of means of livelihood and environmental degradation, caused by development and extractive projects. Please give concrete examples of cases where the State party has taken measures to ensure that affected communities receive reparations." (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 20.12.2013, p.1)

"Article 2, paragraph 1 – Maximum available resources

Please explain how the State party’s planning and budgeting process takes account of the disadvantage of some provinces and groups in enjoying economic, social and cultural rights."(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 20.12.2013, p.2)

"Article 12 – The right to physical and mental health

Please provide information on the impact of measures taken to improve access to,and the quality of, sexual and reproductive health services and maternal health services, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Please provide information on the measures taken to ensure access to adequate mental health treatment and care.

Please indicate whether the State party has adopted a human rights approach to its drugs policy, including prevention and treatment.

Articles 13 and 14 – The right to education

Please provide information on the impact of measures taken by the State party to improve access to, and the quality of, education in rural and other disadvantaged areas.

Article 15 – Cultural rights

Please provide information on the measures taken to protect the cultural heritage of ethnic and linguistic minorities and of indigenous populations in the State party, and to create favourable conditions for them to preserve, develop, express and disseminate their identity, history, culture, language, traditions and customs.

Please provide information on measures taken to preserve the State party’s linguistic heritage and diversity. In particular, please provide information on measures, such as research and documentation, taken by the State party for the preservation of endangered regional and local languages." (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 20.12.2013, p.4)

 

3rd Review by the CRC

 Concluding CRC Observations regarding combined 3rd and 4th report by Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Indonesia, CRC /C/IDN/CO/3-4 (10 July 2014), available here

"Non-discrimination

19. While welcoming the State party’s gender mainstreaming programme, the Committee is deeply concerned about discriminatory provisions that still remain in national legislation and the prevalence of de facto discrimination, including:

[...]

(d) Various forms of discrimination against children belonging to indigenous communities, such as insufficient access to education and health care.

20.The Committee urges the State party to vigorously address all forms of de jure and de facto discrimination and to:

[...]

(d) Take all necessary measures, in particular improving the relevant infrastructure, to provide equal access to public services by children belonging to indigenous communities." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 5)

"47. The Committee welcomes the Healthy Village development policy, the increase in the number of community health centres, the programme on Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness, the efforts to reduce disease and malnutrition as well as the decrease of infant and under-5 mortality rates since 1990. However, the Committee is very concerned about:

(a)The still high percentage of neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality, particularly as a result of diarrhoea and pneumonia, and the large number of children below the age of 5 who are suffering from stunting and underweight;
(b) The rate of maternal mortality which remains particularly high;
(c) The disparity maternal and infant mortality rates among provinces;
(d)The absence of specific public health regulations on preventive health issues, such as immunization, as well as the unsatisfactory implementation of the immunization programme;
(e)Continuing deficits regarding infrastructure and support for health care facilities, as well as health workers’ skills and their irregular attendance at work.

48. In the light of its general comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, the Committee urges the State party to increase its health budget and expand access to primary health-care services across all provinces. It should ensure that those services are accessible and affordable for populations in both urban and rural areas, independent of their economic background, and in particular:

(a) Ensure the provision of primary health-care services for all pregnant women, including access to antenatal care, safe delivery care, emergency obstetric care as well as postnatal care, as well as for children, focusing on interventions to reduce preventable and other diseases, particularly diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections and undernutrition, and promote good feeding practices for infants and young children;
(b) Strengthen and expand access to preventive health care and therapeutic services for all pregnant women and children, particularly infants and children under the age of 5, including universal immunization services, oral rehydration therapy and treatment for acute respiratory infections;
(c) Provide sufficient free professional assistance before and during childbirth, including in remote and rural areas, and make all necessary efforts, including emergency obstetric intervention, to reduce maternal mortality;
(d) Recruit, train and monitor more health-care providers, improve health- care infrastructure and ensure that health-care services include access to sanitation and clean drinking water." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 11f)

HIV/AIDS

51.The Committee is deeply concerned about the continued increase in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS between 2000 and 2009 and the insufficient measures taken by the State party to effectively address the pandemic. The Committee notes with concern the increase in the number of persons with HIV/AIDS in Papua, in general, and the increase in the number of women with HIV/AIDS, in particular, which has led to the rise in HIV infection in children.

52. In the light of its general comment No. 3 (2003) on HIV/AIDS and the rights of the child, the Committee urges the State party to develop and strengthen policies and programmes to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to provide care and support for children infected or affected by HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, the Committee urges the State party to sustain the measures in place to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS, provide for counselling and improve follow-up treatment for HIV/AIDS- infected mothers and their infants so as to ensure early diagnosis and initiation of treatment." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 12)

"Standard of living

57. The Committee welcomes the measures taken by the State party with regard to poverty eradication and social assistance, in particular the National Community Empowerment Program (PNPM) and Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, which are aimed at reducing disparities among regions. However, the Committee is deeply concerned about:

(a) The estimated 13.8 million children living below the national poverty line, and the 8.4 million children living in extreme poverty;
(b) The decentralization process, which has led to the formation of many new provinces and districts and thereby given rise to disparities among regions in access to public services such as birth registration, basic education and clean drinking water;
(c) The urban–rural, ethnic and gender disparities regarding poverty, with children in Papua being particularly disadvantaged;
(d) Social assistance programmes for education not reaching the poorest children who are out of school and therefore unable to access the social protection scheme;
(e) Rural and indigenous women being faced with particular poverty, which leads to poorer outcomes for their children.

58. The Committee recommends that the State party develop a holistic anti-poverty strategy and take all necessary measures to understand and address the root causes of, and eliminate, child poverty. It also recommends that the State party:

(a) Establish poverty reduction strategies and programmes at all levels, paying particular attention to rural and remote areas, ensure equitable access to basic services, in particular adequate nutrition, housing, water and sanitation, as well as education, social and health services, and provide material assistance to economically disadvantaged families;
(b) Adapt social assistance programmes for education to ensure access by children who are out of school;
(c) Establish adequate support programmes to improve the situation of rural and indigenous women in order to keep them and their children out of poverty in a sustainable manner;
(d) Provide for sufficient, adequately trained social workers capable of identifying families and children at risk, manage the social schemes effectively and follow up on their implementation." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 13f)

"59. While welcoming the programme for universal education up to the age of 18, the Committee is very concerned about the large number of children of compulsory school age who are out of school, particularly in Java, and about the obstacles to access to, and quality of, education. It is particularly concerned that:

[...]

(b) A significant number of children, in particular those from poor families, stop going to school owing to high education fees or other costs such as for books and uniforms;
(c) Measures to prevent adolescent girls from dropping out of school in case of pregnancy are lacking, pregnant girls are expelled from schools or discouraged from continuing their education during pregnancy and married children frequently discontinue their education;
(d) There is a high occurrence of violence at school, including on the part of the teaching personnel, a large number of teachers do not have the minimum qualifications required by the Government and teachers often do not go to work.

60. Building on its previous recommendation (CRC/C/15/Add.223, para. 63), the Committee urges the State party to take prompt measures to ensure that quality education is accessible by all children in the State party. It further urges the State party to:

[...]

(b) Increase funding for education, with particular focus on families living in the poorest and most remote districts, and take concrete action to effectively address the reasons for failure to complete schooling;
(c) Ensure that married adolescents, pregnant teenagers and adolescent mothers are supported and assisted in continuing their education in mainstream schools and that they can combine child rearing and completing education;
(d) Increase the number of teachers, provided adequate training for them and ensure that they present themselves for work;
(e) Take all necessary measures, including developing school-specific action plans and regular school inspections, aimed at putting an end to corporal punishment and other forms of violence in school, including bullying." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 14)

"Early childhood development

61. The Committee is concerned about the economic and urban–rural disparities with regard to attendance of preschool education programmes, insufficient budget allocations for early childhood care and education, inadequate infrastructure and lack of adequate personnel in early childhood care and education in remote areas.

62. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that early childhood care and education is free and that institutions are accessible, including for children living in remote areas, adequately staffed and furnished, and able to provide early childhood care and education in a holistic manner, including with regard to overall child development and strengthening parental capacity." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 15)

" 69. The Committee is furthermore concerned about the situation of children belonging to indigenous communities, in particular Papuans, who are subjected to poverty, militarization, extraction of natural resources on their lands, as well as poor access to education and health care.

70. In the light of its general comment No. 11 (2009) on indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, the Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to eliminate poverty among indigenous communities and monitor progress in that regard, as well as provide for their equal access to all public services, pursue demilitarization efforts and ensure the prior informed consent of indigenous peoples with regard to exploitation of the natural resources in their traditional territories." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10.07.2014, p. 16)

 

Communications from Special Procedures (HRD)

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, Addendum, Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received , A/HRC/25/55/ADD.3 (03 March 2014), available from http://undocs.org/A/HRC/25/55/ADD.3.


“JAL 23/09/2013, Case no: IDN 4/2013, State reply: none to date

Alleged arbitrary dispersal and arrests of a total of 71 peaceful protestors in Papua.

Observations

The Special Rapporteur regrets that, at the time of finalising this report, no reply had been received from the Government of Indonesia to the joint allegation letter sent during the reporting period.

The Special Rapporteur expresses concerns about information received on alleged restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Indonesia, including the arbitrary dispersal, arrests and detention of peaceful protestors and the denial of a permit to hold a demonstration. She would like to reiterate her concerns that certain provisions in the Bill on Mass Organisations will hamper the legitimate human rights work of civil society in Indonesia, in particular of foreign societal organisations, which she voiced in the joint press release published on 14 February 2013.The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that the State has a duty to protect and to provide a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders to conduct their work.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that so far no reply has been received in response to her request to visit Indonesia (2012) to enable her to gain a better understanding of the situation of human rights defenders in the country. She expresses her hope that the Government will respond favourably to this request and she remains available to provide guidance and assistance the Government might require.” (Human Rights Council 03.03.2014, p. 30 f)

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, A/HRC/26/29/ADD.1 (09 June 2014), available from http://undocs.org/A/HRC/26/29/ADD.1.

“JAL 23/09/2013. Case no.IDN 4/2013. State reply: none to date. Alleged arbitrary dispersal and arrests of a total of 71 peaceful protestors in Papua.

Observations

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Indonesia has not responded to his communication. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate, and urges the authorities to provide detailed answers to all the concerns raised in his communications.

The Special Rapporteur remains very concerned about the situation of human rights defenders and political activists in West Papua who exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. He urges the authorities to protect and facilitate the exercise of their rights, and not unduly interfere with it.

The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Council resolution 24/5, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[r]eminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.

The Special Rapporteur reminds again the Government of Indonesia of his country visit requests sent in September 2011 and October 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council... [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks... and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”. (Human Rights Council 09.06.2014, p. 34 f)

 

Press Briefing on recent killings in Indonesia / Papua

Reference: United Nations, Department of Public Information, Press briefing notes on Thailand / land rights defenders, Indonesia / Papua killings and Human Rights Day: #Rights365, (09 December 2014), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15394&LangID=E

Indonesia / Papua killings
 
We are alarmed at the reported killing of five Papuan teenagers in the highlands region of Paniai in Indonesia yesterday. While the exact circumstances are unclear as there are conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the killings. reportedly, a group of young people gathered outside a police station in the town of Enarotali yesterday to protest against the beating of a local boy by security forces on Sunday night. The police then reportedly opened fire and five teenage boys were killed. A number of other people were injured.
 
We have been concerned about regular reports of violence in Papua in the last few years and we urge the authorities to facilitate an independent and thorough investigation into yesterday’s incident. We will continue to engage with the new Government of Indonesia on this issue of concern.” (High Commissioner on Human Rights 09.12.2014)  

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding arrest of two foreign journalists

Reference:Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 4/2014, (12 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 4/2014, (12 September 2014) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15975

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacity as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/2 and 25/18.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the arrest of two journalists, Mr. Thomas Dandois and Ms. Valentine Bourrat, and an indigenous leader, Mr. Areki Wanimbo and the summoning of the human rights defender, Mr. Theo Hesegem and their interpreter Mr. Alexander Logo.

According to the information received:

Mr. Dandois and Ms. Bourrat, arrived in Wamena, West Papua, on 5 August 2014, to gather information for a documentary they had been working on for Arte TV. The two French journalists allegedly entered West Papua on a tourist visa. On 6 August 2014, Mr. Dandois and Ms. Bourrat interviewed Mr. Wanimbo, a Papuan indigenous leader from Lanny, to obtain information regarding the conflict between the Indonesian security forces and the National Liberation Army of West Papua (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional Papua Barat, TPNPB). The journalists were accompanied by a Papuan human rights defender, Mr. Hesegem and a local interpreter, Mr. Logo.

On the way back to the hotel, Mr. Hesegem, who was giving a lift to Ms. Bourrat on his motorbike, was allegedly stopped by three unidentified police intelligence officers from the Jayawijaya District Police. Mr. Hesegem was permitted to continue his trip with Ms. Bourrat, who was subsequently arrested upon arrival to her hotel. Mr. Dandois and Mr. Logo were also arrested on their way back to  Wamena, in Jalan Bhayangkara. They were all taken to the Jayawijaya District Police station.

After arresting the two journalists and Mr. Logo, it is reported that the police also arrested Mr. Wanimbo at his house, along with two other Papuans, Mr. Deni Dow and Mr. Jornus Wenda. They were also taken to Jayawijaya District Police station for interrogation.

Mr. Logo, Mr. Dow and Mr. Wenda were subsequently released without any charge on 7 August.

The two journalists were allegedly taken to the Papua Regional Police office for further interrogation. According to information received, they were charged with misuse of permit to stay under Article 122 of Immigration Law (Law No. 6/2011), punishable by maximum imprisonment of five years and fine of IDR 500 million (approximately USD 42,740). It has also been reported that the journalists were also charged with treason attempt under Articles 106 and 110 of the Penal Code, read in conjunction with Article 53, for allegedly providing ammunition to members of the TPNPB.

Mr. Wanimbo was charged with complicity to misuse a permit to stay. As the two journalists, he was also charged with treason attempt for allegedly providing ammunition to the TPNPB, as well as for collecting donations for a meeting on West Papua’s membership application to Melanesia Spearhead Groups (MSG).

Mr. Wanimbo is currently detained at the Jayawijaya District Police station, whereas Mr. Dandois and Ms. Bourrat are detained at the Papua Regional Police station.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to the relevant international norms and standards that are applicable to the issues brought forth by the situation described above.

In connection to the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Reference to international law provisions, annexed to this letter, which contains a non-exhaustive list of international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.

Since it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts referred to above true and accurate?

2. Were Mr. Dandois, Ms. Bourrat and Mr. Waninbo informed, at the time of the arrest, of the reasons for their arrest? Were they promptly informed of the charges against them?

3. Were Mr. Dandois, Ms. Bourrat and Mr. Waninbo allowed to be assisted by, and communicate with, a counsel of their choice? If so, when were they allowed to meet their lawyers for the first time?

4. Have Mr. Dandois and Ms. Bourrat been notified of their right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of their right of access to a national consular officer?

5. Were Mr. Dandois, Ms. Bourrat and Mr. Waninbo brought promptly before a judge, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? If not, please indicate when they will be brought before a judge.

6. Please provide detailed information on the special permits that international journalists are required to obtain before traveling to West Papua, and explain whether this practice is consistent with the principle of freedom of the press enshrined in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We would appreciate a response within 60 days.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Michel Forst
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders” ( Human Rights Council, 12 September 2014)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding allegations of the violent dispersal of a demonstration in Jayapura

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 2/2014, (1 May 2014) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15419

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders;
and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 25/2, 24/5, 25/18, and 25/13.

In this connection, we would like to bring to your Excellency’s Government’s attention information we have received concerning the violent dispersal of a demonstration in Jayapura, West Papua, on 2 April 2014, and the arrest and torture of two student demonstrators, Mr. Alfares Kapisa and Mr. Yali Wenda.

Mr. Alfares Kapisa is a medical student at Cenderawasih University, Jayapura. He is also the field coordinator of the demonstration on 2 April 2014.

Mr. Yali Wenda is a social and political sciences student at Cenderawasih  University, Jayapura. He is also a member of the Student Solidarity for Political Prisoners (Solidaritas Mahasiswa Peduli Tapol).

According to the information received:

On 28 March 2014, Mr. Yali Wenda submitted a letter to the Jayapura City police station (Polres Kota Jayapura) where he provided notification of two planned peaceful demonstrations on 2 April 2014. The purpose of these demonstrations was to call for the release of 76 Papuan political prisoners, the opening of democratic space, and access for journalists, researchers and United Nations observers to West Papua. Mr. Wenda was reportedly advised by the police to return on 1 April 2014 to collect a letter confirming the police’s receipt of their notification, which he did. He was then requested to sign a nine-point letter guaranteeing that the demonstrations scheduled for 2 April would be peaceful. Mr. Wenda signed the letter as requested and was assured that he would receive the confirmation letter on the morning of 2 April.

On 2 April 2014, two demonstrations took place; one at the Cenderawasih University (UNCEN) in Waena and the other one in Abepura. At around 8:00 a.m., students gathered at UNCEN in Waena for the demonstration. A few moments later, three trucks of Jayapura Crowd Control police (polisi Pengendalian Massa, Dalmas) and three trucks of police Mobile Brigades (Brigades Mobil, Brimob) arrived, along with a water cannon and a barracuda tank.
 
At around 10:20 a.m., the demonstrators at UNCEN attempted to march towards Abepura to join the other demonstration and were subsequently blocked by the police. The assistant of Rector III of UNCEN then reportedly prepared two trucks to transport the students; however, the police similarly blocked these trucks and ordered the demonstrators to disperse and return home. The demonstrators did not comply with this request.

Mr. Alfares Kapisa and Mr. Yali Wenda then approached the police in an attempt to negotiate. The two students were subsequently arrested and thrown into the control truck. They were reportedly kept in the truck for 1.5 hours and were repeatedly beaten with fists, sticks and rifle butts, and kicked with jackboots.

Following the arrest of the two student demonstrators, the police officers reportedly shouted racist insults at the remaining indigenous student demonstrators, calling them “monkeys” and “idiots”. During this time, the police officers reportedly detained several older indigenous women who were in the area and said “we are going to torture your mothers.” The crowd responded by throwing stones at the police. The police reportedly then fired 11 shots and teargas at the demonstrators. The student demonstrators fled the area and sought cover in the campus.
 
Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda were subsequently brought to the Jayapura police station. During the journey, they were reportedly forced to lie face down in the truck, while the police trampled on them and shocked them with electric stun batons.

Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda were then taken to the criminal investigation unit  (Reserse Kriminal, reskrim) at the Jayapura police station and placed in a cell. During the night, a doctor arrived at their cell to clean their wounds. The doctor also stitched Mr. Wenda’s ear that had been torn. This was allegedly done without anesthetics. The doctor also requested Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda to hand over their clothes which were covered with blood andthe police officers brought them clean clothes to put on.
 
On 3 April between 08:00 and 11:00 a.m., Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda were interrogated by the police investigator. They were reportedly forced to sign a police investigation report, which said that they had not been beaten, and to promise not to carry out any more demonstrations. Reportedly, their lawyers were refused access to Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda at three separate occasions while they were detained. Reportedly, one of the lawyers was informed by the Chief of Jayapura Police that Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda had been arrested because they had violated the terms of the letter which Mr. Wenda had signed before the demonstration.

Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda were released at noon and were taken to Dian Harapan hospital to receive medical treatment and obtain a medical report. Their injuries included the following; Mr. Kapisa had a swollen eye and temple, swollen top centre of head, wounds on the body from electric stun baton, while Mr. Wenda had a torn left ear, swollen chin and wounds on the body from electric stun baton. Allegedly, when Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda and their lawyers requested a medical report detailing their injuries, they were informed that this could only be issued with a letter from the police. Furthermore, Mr. Kapisa and Mr. Wenda have allegedly not received any compensation from the authorities for the treatment that they have required for the injuries that they sustained.

Following their release, Mr. Wenda has been visited on two occasions by police intelligence agents who reportedly asked him whether he is scared after having been beaten.

Grave concerns are expressed regarding the reported excessive use of force against the demonstrators. Further concerns are expressed regarding the arrest and torture of Mr. Alfares Kapisa and Mr. Yali Wenda, and for their physical and psychological integrity in light of the reports acts of intimidation following their release.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would further like to refer to your Excellency’s Government to the following provisions of the ICCPR:

- article 19, which provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice”; and

- article 21, which provides that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

We would like to further refer to Human Rights Council resolution 24/5, and in particular operative paragraph 2 that “reminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law.”

In addition, we would like to refer your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in particular articles 1 and 2 which state that "everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels” and that “each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice”.

Furthermore, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government the following provisions of the Declaration:

- article 5 point a) which establishes that for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels, to meet or assemble peacefully.

- article 6 points b) and c) which provide that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others as provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters.

- article 12 paras 2 and 3 of the Declaration which provide that the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively undernational law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In addition, we would like to refer to the 2006 report to the General Assembly (A/61/312) of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders and in particular to paragraph 98 which states that “in conformity with article 15 of the Declaration [on Human Rights Defenders], the Special Representative urges States to ensure that law enforcement agencies and their members are trained in and aware of international human rights standards and international standards for the policing of peaceful assemblies, including the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and other relevant treaties, declarations and guidelines. The Special Representative also advises all States that all allegations of indiscriminate and/or excessive use of force by law enforcement officials should be properly investigated and appropriate action taken against the responsible officials”.

With regards to youth defenders taking part in demonstrations, we would like to refer to the 2007 report to the General Assembly of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation on human rights defenders in which she recommends to “take steps to create a conducive environment that allows children and young adults to associate and express views on matters affecting them as well as on broader human rights issues. Student protests have a high educational value as they are among the first experiences of public participation and human rights defense of students. Ensuring a conducive environment for student protests is a social investment in addition to a legal obligation” (A/62/225, para. 101 b)

Furthermore, we should like to appeal to your Excellency’s Government to seek clarification of the circumstances regarding the cases of the persons named above. We would like to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

In this context, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to paragraph 1 of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 which “Condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all States to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

We would also like to draw your Excellency’s Government’s attention to article 12 of the CAT, which requires the competent authorities to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, and article 7 of the CAT, which requires State parties to prosecute suspected perpetrators of torture.

We would also like to draw your Excellency’s Government’s attention to paragraph 7b of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which urges States “To take persistent, determined and effective measures to have all allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment promptly and impartially examined by the competent national authority, to hold those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture responsible, to have them brought to justice and severely punished, including the officials in charge of the place of detention where the prohibited act is found to have been committed, and to take note in this respect of the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Principles) as a useful tool in efforts to combat torture;”.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1.Are the facts alleged in the above summary accurate?

2.Has a complaint been lodged by or on behalf of the victims?

3.Please provide information concerning the legal grounds for the use of force against the demonstrators and how these measures are compatible with international human rights law.

4. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case.

5. Please provide information concerning the legal grounds for the arrest and detention of the abovementioned persons and how these measures are compatible with international norms and standards as stated, inter alia, in the UDHR and the ICCPR. Please provide information on whether all detainees have access to family members, legal counsel, and medical personnel.

6. Please indicate what measures have been taken to ensure that the legitimate right to assemble peacefully is respected and that the physical and psychological integrity of those exercising this right is guaranteed.

7. Please indicate what measures have been taken to ensure that human rights defenders, including civil society and activists, can operate in an enabling environment and can carry out their legitimate activities without fear of harassment, stigmatization or criminalization of any kind.

We would appreciate a response within sixty days.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

While waiting for your response, we urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of the above mentioned persons are respected and, in the event that your investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations should be ensured. We also request that your Excellency’s Government adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Margaret Sekaggya
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Juan E. Méndez
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”  Human Rights Council, 1 May 2014)

 

2013

 1st Review by the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

 Concluding CCPR Observations on the Initial Report of Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Indonesia, CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1 (21 August 2013), available from http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1.

“The Committee regrets the failure by the State party to implement article 43 of Law 26 of 2000 in order to establish a court to investigate cases of enforced disappearance committed between 1997 and 1998 as also recommended by Komnas HAM and the Indonesian Parliament. The Committee particularly regrets the impasse between the Attorney General and Komnas HAM with regard to the threshold of evidence that should be satisfied by Komnas HAM before the Attorney General can take action. The Committee further regrets the prevailing climate of impunity and lack of redress for victims of past human rights violations, particularly those involving the military (art. 2)
 
The State party should, as a matter of urgency, address the impasse between Komnas HAM and the Attorney General. It should expedite the establishment of a court to investigate cases of enforced disappearance committed between 1997 and 1998 as recommended by Komnas HAM and the Indonesian Parliament. Furthermore, the State party should effectively prosecute cases involving past human rights violations, such as the murder of prominent human rights defender Munir Said Thalib on 7 September 2004, and provide adequate redress to victims or members of their families.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 3)

“While taking note of the existence of a bill on the Penal Code that seeks to provide for a comprehensive definition of torture and attendant penalties, the Committee is concerned at the inordinate delay in its enactment, leaving victims of acts of torture without adequate remedies (arts. 2 and 7).
 
The State party should expedite the process of the enactment of a revised Penal Code. It should ensure that the revised Penal Code includes a definition of torture that covers all of the elements contained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and article 7 of the Covenant. The State party should also ensure that the law adequately provides for the effective investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of such acts and their accomplices; that, if convicted, perpetrators and their accomplices are punished with sanctions commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; and that victims are adequately compensated. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that law enforcement personnel receive training on prevention and investigation of torture and ill-treatment by integrating the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) into all their training programmes.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 5)


“The Committee is concerned at increased reports of excessive use of force and extrajudicial killings by the police and the military during protests, particularly in West Papua, Bima and West Nusa Tenggara. The Committee is particularly concerned at reports that the State party uses its security apparatus to punish political dissidents and human rights defenders. The Committee is also concerned that the National Police Commission, which is mandated to receive public complaints against law enforcement personnel, is weak as it has neither powers to summon law enforcement personnel nor the mandate to conduct independent investigations (arts. 6 and 7).

The State party should take concrete steps to prevent the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers by ensuring that they comply with the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. It should also take appropriate measures to strengthen the National Police Commission to ensure that it can effectively deal with reported cases of alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, the State party should take practical steps to put an end to impunity for its security personnel regarding arbitrary and extrajudicial killings, and should take appropriate measures to protect the rights of political dissidents and human rights defenders. The State party should systematically and effectively investigate and prosecute cases of extrajudicial killings and, in the event of a conviction, punish those responsible, and provide adequate compensation to the victims’ families.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 5)


“The Committee is concerned that under the Criminal Procedure Code a detained person may be held in police custody for a period up to 20 days, without being brought before a judge, which period might be extended up to 60 days and even longer for suspects of terrorism. While appreciating that the State party is in the process of revising the Criminal Procedure Code and taking into account the additional information provided by the State party’s delegation, the Committee is concerned that the new bill only proposes a reduction of the period of detention from 20 days to 5 days (art. 9).

The Committee encourages the State party to ensure that the Criminal Procedure Code be revised in order to provide that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge is brought before a judge within 48 hours.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 6)


“The Committee expresses its concern over the recently adopted Law on mass organizations, which introduces undue restrictions on the freedoms of association, expression and religion of both domestic and “foreign” associations. The Committee is particularly concerned at the provisions in the law that introduced onerous requirements for registration, and the vague and overly restrictive requirements that such associations should be in line with the State’s official philosophy of Pancasila, which propagates the belief “in the One and Only God” (arts. 18, 19 and 22).

The Committee urges the State party to review the Law on mass organizations to ensure that it is in compliance with the provisions of articles 18, 19 and 22 of the Covenant as expounded by the Committee in its general comments No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 7)


“While noting that, unlike in other provinces in the State party, protesters in Papua are not required to obtain a permit from the police before holding demonstrations, the Committee remains concerned at undue restrictions of the freedom of assembly and expression by protesters in West Papua (arts. 19 and 21).

In line with the Committee’s general comment No. 34, the State party should take the necessary steps to ensure that any restrictions to the freedom of expression comply fully with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, as further clarified in general comment No. 34. The State party should ensure the enjoyment by all of the freedom of peaceful assembly and protect protesters from harassment, intimidation and violence. The State party should consistently investigate such cases and prosecute those responsible.” (Human Rights Committee 21.08.2013, p. 8f)

 

Concluding observations (Addendum) on Indonesia's initial report

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Indonesia, Addendum, Information received from Indonesia on follow-up to the concluding observations, CCPR/C/IDN/CO/ADD.1 (01 May 2015), available from http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/IDN/CO/ADD.1.

“Medical officers, including health professionals association and medical schools, are the major target for dissemination of the Minister of Health Regulation. Dissemination programs have been conducted for managers of reproductive (mother and child) health programs and of provincial hospitals in 8 provinces, namely Jambi, Lampung, West Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, West Papua and Papua."(Human Rights Committee 01.05.2015, p.4)

 

CPR List of Issues of the 2013 Indonesia CCPR Review

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, List of issues in relation to the initial report of Indonesia (CCPR/C/IDN/1), adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (11–28 March 2013), CCPR/C/IDN/Q/1 (29 April 2013), available from http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/IDN/Q/1.

Right to life (art. 6)
 
Please respond to allegations that security personnel in the State party killed alleged criminals and terrorist suspects in the course of apprehending them in 2011.Please also respond to reports that as a result of excessive use of force during protests on 19 October 2011 in  Jayapura, Papua, and on 24 December 2011 on Buma Island and West Nusa Tenggara, the police killed several protesters. What measures have been   taken to investigate these incidents as recommended by Komnas HAM?” (Human Rights Committee 29.04.2013, p. 2)

“Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; liberty and security of person, treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, independence of the judiciary and fair trial (arts. 7, 9, 10 and 14)
 
Please provide an update on specific steps taken to revise the current Criminal Code so that it prohibits torture and includes a definition of torture that complies with article 7 of the Covenant and article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Please provide information on the measures taken to combat the alleged widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees, and to address poor conditions in prisons that are allegedly exacerbated by overcrowding, because most prisons and detention facilities operate at almost double capacity.
 
Please provide information on steps taken to grant access to prisons and detention facilities by independent monitoring bodies, following the Government’s refusal in 2009 to grant access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to inspect prisons and detention facilities in the State party. Please respond to allegations that the State party requested the ICRC to close its field offices in Aceh and Papua provinces. Please confirm whether an independent monitoring mechanism has been designated to monitor imprisonment and detention conditions  and the situation of prisoners and detainees, with powers to conduct unannounced visits. Please explain the mandate of the Ombudsman for Correctional Facilities.

Please respond to allegations that torture and ill-treatment of detainees is widespread, especially at the moment of apprehension and during  pretrial detention, and that it is mostly used to extract confessions. What measures have been put in place to ensure that evidence obtained  under torture is inadmissible and excluded in court? Please provide data on the activities of the Internal Affairs Division and the National  Police Commission which are mandated to investigate complaints against police officers. Specifically, please provide data on: (a) the number of complaints received against police officers; (b) investigations carried out; (c) prosecutions, convictions and types of penalties imposed; and ( d) compensation awarded to the victims of torture or ill-treatment.“ (Human Rights Committee 29.04.2013, p. 3)

“Please respond to reports that the law permits the police to detain accused persons for an initial period of 20 days, which can be extended to 60 days, and that prosecutors may further detain a suspect for a further 30 days and can only seek an extension from the courts if they intend  to extend the detention for a further 20 days. Please state how this is compatible with the Covenant.
 
Please state the measures taken by the State party to ensure that suspects have access to lawyers and legal aid. Please respond to reports of corruption in the provision of legal aid services, including an allegation that the speed of cases funded under the legal aid scheme depends on the payment of a bribe. (Human Rights Committee 29.04.2013, p. 4)

“Please respond to allegations of forcible evictions in rural areas, particularly those located close to extractive industries and plantations. Please provide information on the conduct of the evictions, alternative housing provided, and how these evictions affect the right to privacy of evictees.” (Human Rights Committee 29.04.2013, p. 4)

 

Press Release: Human Rights Committee considers Initial Report of Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Department of Public Information, Human Rights Committee considers Initial report of Indonesia (11 July 2013), available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13531&LangID=E.

“Report of Indonesia

The second periodic report of Indonesia on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be read here: (CCPR/C/IDN/1).

Presentation of the report

[...] Committee Experts requested clarification regarding the declaration made by Indonesia upon its signature of the Convention, concerning limitations to the right of self-determination. The Covenant had to be implemented in all regions, regardless of their autonomy, and the Government was bound to ensure that all provisions of the Covenant were fully implemented, even in regions where by-laws were in contradiction with some provisions of the Covenant. The judiciary had to be trained in order to be made fully aware of the provisions of the Covenant, which had to be interpreted in line with the Committee’s recommendations. Experts noted that serious violations of human rights had to be investigated and that perpetrators had to be duly prosecuted.

[…] Freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly was guaranteed by the legal system. Independent mechanisms had been established to ensure that the freedom of the press was exercised in a responsible manner, such as the independent commission on broadcasting and the commission on information. The important role played by civil society, including the media, in promoting and protecting human rights was fully recognized. Efforts were made to ensure that the rule of law was upheld.

[…] The Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were being modernised. Draft laws, including a definition of torture in accordance with the Convention against Torture, had been submitted to the Parliament in 2012 and covered issues that were not regulated by the current Criminal Code.

[…] Allegations of acts of torture were thoroughly investigated and duly processed in accordance with the law. Preventive measures were in place, such as monitoring mechanisms, and in this context 176 correctional officers had received minor to severe disciplinary punishments. Steps had been taken to prevent instances of ill-treatment of detainees, specifically during the pre-trial detention. Suspects had the right to be accompanied by a lawyer during interrogations, which were filmed most of the time. The reform of correctional facilities continued, including through capacity building measures for wardens and prison officials, and respect for human rights was an integral part of their standard operational procedures.

[…] Questions by Experts

[…] Were ordinary crimes committed by members of the armed forces judged by military courts? The Committee had been told that military courts lacked independence and transparency.

[…] What measures had been taken to respond to allegations about the widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees and poor conditions in prisons?

[...] What measures had been taken to investigate the excessive use of force during protests in Papua in 2011, during which several protesters were killed by the police? What recommendations had the National Commission on Human Rights made in this regard? Seventy extrajudicial killings had recently taken place in Papua but no perpetrators had been prosecuted. Impunity had become a structural problem in Indonesia. Criminal prosecutions and sanctions were appropriate measures to combat police violence and had to be implemented. What had been the impact of the Code of Conduct for officers of correctional facilities so far and what was the mandate of the Ombudsman with regards to correction facilities?

[…] Experts requested clarification regarding the declaration made by Indonesia upon its signature of the Convention concerning limitations to the right of self-determination. What was the exact scope of the reservations? The Covenant had to be implemented in all regions, regardless of their autonomy, and the Government was bound to ensure that all provisions of the Covenant were fully implemented, even in regions where by-laws were in contradiction with some provisions of the Covenant.

[…] Response by the Delegation

[…] Due process was guaranteed to all victims of gross violations of human rights perpetrated by military officers in the past. The question concerning the trial of military officers by military courts was under discussion before the Parliament and laws on military courts were presently under discussion. All decisions made by military courts could be examined by the Supreme Court and, in addition, the proceedings of military courts were carried out in public, which enhanced their transparency.

[…] The Attorney General’s Office had addressed three cases of gross violations of human rights; and all perpetrators had been freed by the judges given that these violations were not part of a widespread attack against civilians. Without blaming the decisions of the court, the delegation noted that different institutions had different views on security issues. It had been agreed that the National Commission on Human Rights would meet with the Attorney General’s Office to reconcile their views on these sensitive cases.

[…] The interpretative declaration made by Indonesia regarding Article 1 of the Covenant referred to principles of international law related to territorial integrity and the political unity of sovereign States.

[…] Questions by Experts

[…] NGOs had reported the existence of political prisoners and acts of intimidation against human rights activists and journalists in West-Papua. What measures had been taken to guarantee freedom of expression in this area?

[…] Response by the Delegation

[…] The Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression to all citizens. In the case of Papua, numerous protests had highlighted concerns about the situation in the region. Freedom of expression could not be used to infringe on the rights of others. The denial of historical facts and the defamation of State officials were not allowed. It was crucial to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia. The delegation mentioned several specific cases in which the prevailing laws had been applied to individuals who had participated in seditious activities.” (Human Rights Committee 11.07.2013)

 

Report by the Special Rapporteur  on adequate housing on her Mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Raquel Rolnik, Addendum, Mission to Indonesia, A/HRC/25/54/Add.1 (26 December 2013), available here

"VI. Security of tenure and land issues

42. A complex, unresolved, inequitable and exclusionary land tenure system exists in Indonesia, exemplified by the fact that approximately 69 per cent of the land is owned by 16 per cent of the population.

43. Indonesia’s land legislation is based on colonial norms and practices, over which post-colonial reforms have been imposed. All land in Indonesia falls into one of two categories, forest estate (about 70 per cent of the land) and non-forest estate (the remaining 30 per cent). Forest estate is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Forestry, regulated by the Basic Forest Law of 1967. Non-forest estate is managed and administered by BPN, according to the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. As such, land is administered under a dual system through two different Government agencies  responsible for forestry and non-forestry lands, respectively. This dual system, together with colonial legacies and lack of integration of customary rights, have all generated numerous challenges, including widespread tenure insecurity, limited recognition of the customary rights of individuals and communities, and the unsustainable management of natural resources"(Human Rights Council, 26.12.2013, p. 12)

"48. Although article 56 of the Basic Agrarian Law (BAL) recognizes the continuing validity of rights derived from adat, or customary law, the right-holder cannot register the right or have it fully recognized by the State until he or she purchases a certification from BPN confirming that the land is not State land. Adat land can only be registered and certified after having been rendered into one of seven private law land rights recognized in article  16  of  the  BAL. Thus, although in many cases the land right originates in adat law since well before the creation of the Indonesian State in 1945, BPN officials impose a presumption that all unregistered land is State land until proven otherwise. Moreover, Hak ulayat (which can be translated as “a communal right of allocation”) cannot be registered. This deters communities from applying collectively for land certificates.

49. The 1967 Basic Forestry Law and the 1967 Law on Mining essentially rendered all forest land the property of the State and eliminated the adat rights of communities living in these areas, depicting them as illegal “squatters”. However, according to the Ministry of Forestry, only 14 per cent of forest lands have been legally defined (gazetted), which further creates tenure insecurity. Confusion and disagreement over forest land and its use have led to uncertainty over which entity owns or controls the forests. Unrecognized private rights, including adat communal land, within the forest estate continue to create conflicts, since there about 33,000 villages (approximately 48 million people) located within  or around the forest estate that have been living there for generations, even centuries, but their claims to the land are not recognized by the State." (Human Rights Council, 26.12.2013, p. 13 f)

"51. Due to the decentralization process, district and municipal Governments now manage land, determine resource use and  spatial planning, and manage revenues and budgets. The Special Rapporteur was informed that in many cases developers acquire permits for plantation, mining or development activities from local Governments, without prior knowledge of the residents actually living on the land and sometimes in contradiction to spatial plan or zoning regulations. Indonesia has witnessed nearly 2,000 cases of conflicts which involved 600,000 households regarding 10 million hectares of forest land.

52. In this context, the Special Rapporteur welcomes recent decisions of the Constitutional Court recognizing customary rights over forest land and coastal area to communities traditionally living there, and calls on the Government to adjust legislationand policy in order to implement these decisions as soon as possible. She also calls attention to the Guidelines on large-scale land acquisitions and leases developed by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. The Government of Indonesia may find these guidelines useful when considering the revision of the 1967 Basic Forestry Law  and the 1967 Law on Mining. 

53. Conflicts over land in both rural and urban areas are widespread in Indonesia and prevent registration and tenure security. According to one study, 65 per cent of administrative court cases involve land disputes. Land disputes cases are the number one category of complaints received by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas Ham), mostly related to public and private development activities resulting in involuntary resettlements, and  the  number is increasing. The Ministry of Law and Human Rights (two thirds of complaints) and the Ombudsman (one of the top five) also informed the Special Rapporteur during her visit that complaints on issues related to land are the most prevalent." (Human Rights Council, 26.12.2013, p. 14)

"(f) Land policy should protect the interests of low-income households, indigenous communities and communities occupying  land based on customary (adat) law;

(g) The Government should ensure security of tenure – legal recognition of possession, communal land rights, forest land  ownership. To this end, land regime should be revised so as to resolve ambiguities between customary (adat) and formal land laws;" (Human Rights Council, 26.12.2013, p. 21)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding arbitrary dispersal and arrests of 71 peaceful protestors in Papua

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 4/2013, (23 September 2013) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=22417

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 16/4, 15/21, and 16/5.

In this connection, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the alleged arbitrary dispersal and arrests of 71 peaceful protestors (please see Annex 1).

According to the information received:

On 16 September 2013, the West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, KNPB), a coalition of NGOs calling for a referendum for the people of West Papua, held demonstrations in the cities of Jayapura and Sorong of Papua to honour the International Day of Democracy which falls on 15 September.

It is alleged that the demonstrations, held without obtaining a permit from the Papua Regional Police, despite the notification made by KNPB prior to the day of protests in accordance with Article 10 of Law No. 9 Year 1998 on Freedom to Express Opinion in Public, were met by arbitrary arrests and detention of protestors.

It is reported that in Jayapura, by 7 a.m., officers from the Sentani Sub-District Police already started arresting individuals who were gathering at two meeting points, in Sentani-Abe and in Sektor Toladan, at which nine protesters were arrested. Additionally, over ten protesters were taken to the Jayapura Doyo Baru District Police Station and their demonstration equipment was confiscated.

It is further alleged that the police started arresting protesters from 9 a.m. onwards in Sorong. Twenty-five protestors were arrested and taken to the Sorong Kota Sub-District police station, as they were holding a banner “Indonesia, open up the space for democracy in Papua. Stop violence.”

It is also reported that the grounds on which the police denied the permit request was also arbitrary. Police cited that KNPB has always been “disturbing public order while conducting demonstrations”, without citing a single demonstration that was held in such a manner.

The total number of individuals allegedly arrested in relation to their involvement in the demonstrations in Jayapura and Sorong is 71. The names of those arrested are listed in Annex.

It is further reported that all those arrested were released the same day.

Grave concerns are expressed with regard to the arbitrary dispersal, arrests and detention of peaceful protestors exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of opinion and peaceful assembly, as well as to the allegation that their request to hold the demonstrations in question were dismissed on arbitrary grounds.

We would like to appeal to your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary steps to secure the right to freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with fundamental principles as set forth in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

We would also like to refer to article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security of public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In addition, we would like to refer to Human Rights Council resolution 21/16, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “reminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law.”

We would also like to refer your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in particular articles 1 and 2 which state that “everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels” and that “each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice”.

Furthermore, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government the following provisions of the Declaration:

- article 5 point a) which establishes that for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels, to meet or assemble peacefully; and

- article 12 paras 2 and 3 of the Declaration which provide that the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration.

In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Moreover, since it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?

2. Please provide the details on how the actions undertaken by public officials are compatible with the international norms and standards of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

We would appreciate a response within sixty days.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

While waiting for your response, we urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the legitimate rights to freedom of opinion and assembly exercised by peaceful protestors exercising are respected and, in the event that your investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations should be ensured. We also request that your Excellency’s Government adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Margaret Sekaggya
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders” (Human Rights Council, 23 September 2013)

 

2012

 Combined 6th and 7th Review by the UN Committee for the Eradication of Discrimination against Women

Concluding Observation of the Committee against Discrimination of Women

Reference: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,  Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Indonesia, CEDAW/C/IDN/CO/6-7 (7 August 2012), available here

"The Committee also welcomes the conduct of awareness-raising programmes on violence against women, but remains concerned about:
(a)The limited information provided on the prevalence of violence against women;
(b)The limited number of cases of rape and sexual assault brought to court; the lenient punishments meted out to those convicted of offences related to violence against women; and practices such as the mediation of the police in rape cases, the payment of a fine as the settlement of the case, the practice of marrying the victim to the rapist and the stigmatization of victims of rape;
(c)The absence of a monitoring mechanism for the enforcement of Law No. 23/2004, on domestic violence;
(d)The failure to criminalize marital rape under the Criminal Code and the absence of any reference to rape or marital rape in Law No. 23/2004, on domestic violence.

26. In accordance with its general recommendation No. 19 (1992), on violence against women, the Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Collect data on the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator and disaggregated data on the number of complaints, prosecutions, convictions and sentences in relation to sexual and gender-based violence, rape and domestic violence, and include such data in its subsequent report;
(b) Encourage women and girls to report acts of violence to the competent authorities by raising awareness of the criminal nature of violence against women, de-stigmatizing victims and training the judiciary, including judges of religious courts, prosecutors, lawyers and law enforcement and medical personnel on standardized and gender-sensitive procedures for dealing with victims and effectively investigating their complaints;
(c) Prosecute all acts of domestic and sexual violence against women and girls, punish perpetrators and adequately compensate victims, and consider establishing a monitoring mechanism to ensure the enforcement of Law No. 23/2004, on domestic violence;
(d) Consider amending the Criminal Code and Law No. 23/2004, on domestic violence, to define and criminalize marital rape, in line with the Convention and general recommendation No. 19 (1992) of the Committee, on violence against women." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 07.08.2012, p. 4)

"Violence against women in conflict

27.The Committee is deeply concerned that sexual violence, especially rape, has reportedly been a recurring form of violence against women during conflict, including the events of 1965, the 1974-1999 conflict in the then East Timor Province, the May 1998 riots, the conflict in Aceh Province, the deployment of security and defence forces in Maluku Province and Poso (Central Sulawesi Province) and the conflicts in East Java and Papua Provinces. The Committee is concerned about the failure to prosecute and punish those responsible for violations of the human rights of women committed during the conflicts. It is further concerned about the lack of progress in providing women victims of sexual violence with justice, truth, reparation and rehabilitation for such human rights violations. The Committee is also concerned about the delay in finalizing and adopting the new draft law establishing a national truth and reconciliation commission after the Constitutional Court, in 2006, repealed Law No. 27/2004, which had established a commission. The Committee is further concerned about reports indicating that many women and children remain internally displaced in the State party, including a large number of people recently displaced by renewed intercommunal violence in Maluku and East Java Provinces and by operations targeting rebels of the Free Papua Movement in Papua Province.

28. The Committee urges the State party:
(a) To promptly investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of violence against women, including acts of sexual violence, perpetrated by private actors and by the security and defence forces, the police and militant groups, ensuring that inquiries are conducted exhaustively, impartially and transparently;
(b) To provide full and effective reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, to all victims of human rights violations committed during the conflicts;
(c) To take comprehensive measures to provide medical and psychological support to women victims of violence, including sexual violence, committed during the conflicts, and to establish counselling centres for women to overcome their traumatic experiences;
(d) To adopt the new draft law providing for the establishment of a national truth and reconciliation commission and to ensure that the commission has broad powers to receive complaints and investigate grave human rights violations;
(e) To ensure the security of internally displaced women and to allocate adequate resources to meet their needs, in particular their access to a livelihood, water and education for themselves and their children;
(f) To include women in the post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding process;
(g) To consider ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 07.08.2012, p. 4f)

"Health

41.The Committee is concerned about:
(a) The limited percentage of the national budget allocated to health care;
(b) The persistent high rate of maternal mortality (228 maternal deaths per 100,000 births) and the gross disparities between deliveries in health facilities among women in rural (28.9 per cent) and urban areas (70.3 per cent);
(c) The insufficient provision of comprehensive education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is limited, in practice, to married couples and does not reach women domestic workers;
(d) The requirement for the husband’s consent for women to access some methods of contraception;
(e) The lack of data on unsafe abortions in the country;
(f) The very limited period to undergo abortion (six weeks) and the absence of exception to the criminalization of abortion when pregnancy is harmful to the mother’s health and in cases of incest, which leads women to seek unsafe and illegal abortions; and the need for the consent of the husband to undergo a legal abortion;
(g) The sharp rise in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS (from 2,682 cases in 2004 to 19,973 cases in 2009), which reflects both the spread of infection and better reporting as a result of the growing availability and utilization of counselling and testing.

42. In line with its general recommendation No. 24 (1999), on women and health, the Committee calls upon the State party to:

(a) Ensure that adequate funding is allocated to health, and establish a system for monitoring the effective and transparent delivery of health-care services;
(b) Strengthen its efforts to reduce the incidence and eliminate the causes of maternal mortality;
(c) Widely undertake education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, including to unmarried women and women domestic workers, by undertaking large-scale awareness-raising campaigns for the population in general, with special attention to early pregnancy and the importance of using contraceptives for family planning and for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS; and ensure that, in practice, women can access contraception without requesting the consent of their husband;
(d) Collect data on the prevalence of unsafe abortion, disaggregated by age and areas of origin (rural or urban);
(e) Extend the time limit to undergo abortion and decriminalize abortion in cases of incest and where the health of the pregnant woman or girl is in danger, authorize women to undertake abortion without the consent of their husband and provide safe abortion and post-abortion services;
(f) Take holistic measures to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic and ensure that women and girls infected with HIV/AIDS are not discriminated against and are given appropriate assistance." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 07.08.2012, p. 7)

"Women facing multiple forms of discriminations

45.The Committee is deeply concerned about:
(a)The disadvantaged position of rural and indigenous women, which is characterized by poverty; their difficulties in accessing education and health and social services; and the existence of discrimination with respect to the ownership and inheritance of land;

[...]

46. The Committee urges the State party to:
(a) Pay special attention to the needs of rural women to ensure that they have access to health, education, clean water, sanitation services and income-generating projects; and eliminate discrimination in women ’ s ownership and inheritance of land;" (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 07.08.2012, p. 8)

 

Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay during visit to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pilay at a press conference during her mission to Indonesia (13 November 2012), available from https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/opening-remarks-un-high-commissioner-human-rights-navi-pillay-press-conference

"I also encouraged the Government to move forward with setting up ad hoc human rights courts, as envisaged under law No. 26/2000, to investigate the enforced disappearances of student activists in the late 1990s and serious violations in Aceh and Papua.

I also raised concerns with the Government about increased violence in Papua this year. I welcomed on-going investigations into the May-June violence and recommended that the Government take further steps to ensure criminal accountability. I was also concerned to hear about activists being imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression.

In my meetings, I raised the need to address issues of torture, and was informed that law reforms are underway to define and criminalize torture as a matter of priority, and that it was important to ensure prosecutions of police and other perpetrators of torture. The Government’s commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture is positive and will help to strengthen torture prevention in the country. This is an important treaty that enables regular unannounced inspections by international and national bodies in prisons and detention centres, thereby acting as a deterrent against torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment. Another important step will be to ensure the full implementation of Police Regulation No. 8/2009 on Implementation of Human Rights Standards and Principles in Carrying out Police Tasks." (Human Rights Council, 13.11.2012)

 

Universal Periodic Review - 2nd Cycle

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Indonesia, A/HRC/21/7 (05 July 2012), available from undocs.org/A/HRC/21/7.


“Switzerland expressed concern about acts of intolerance and discrimination perpetrated against religious and ethnical minorities or against people for their sexual orientation or gender identity. It remained concerned by cases of abuse of prisoners, in particular those that had occurred in Western Papua and Papua provinces in 2010. Switzerland made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 6)

“The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed Indonesia’s ratification of the CRPD and efforts to address challenges in Papua and West Papua, where it noted an increase in violence. It noted the occurrence of friction between religious groups and attacks against minorities and encouraged Indonesia to tackle violence against minority faiths and accept visit requests by Special Rapporteurs. It made recommendations.”  (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 7)

“The United States of America commended Indonesia’s pursuit to promote prosperity and address grievances in the Papuan provinces though it remained concerned about allegations of abuses. It voiced concern about the failures to create and enforce a framework of accountability for abuses by the military and police and to protect certain religious minorities. It made recommendations." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 7f)

“France remained concerned by the acts of violence committed by the police against human rights defenders. It deplored the violations of human rights against persons belonging to religious minorities, in particular against Ahmadis and the Papuan community. France made recommendations." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 10)

"Germany asked Indonesia whether it intended to release Filep Karma and other political detainees. Regarding the conflict in the Papua provinces, it valued the efforts made to resolve the conflict through dialogue, but noted that serious human rights violations remained to be addressed. Germany made recommendations." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 10)

“Italy commended Indonesia’s commitment to promoting interfaith dialogue but expressed concern about reported violence against religious minorities. Italy asked Indonesia to provide an update on the implementation of the 2001 special law granting autonomy to the region of West Papua. It made a recommendation.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 11)

“Japan welcomed President Yudhoyono’s plan to offer an apology for past human rights violations during the Suharto era. It encouraged Indonesia to make full use of the Principles and Guidelines for the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons Affected by Leprosy and Their Family Members. Japan voiced concern at reported human rights violations in Papua. Japan made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 11)

“New Zealand was encouraged by Indonesia’s establishment of the Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua and the intended change from a “security approach” to a “welfare and justice approach” for Papuans. It thanked Indonesia for information on the progress made in ratifying OPCAT and the Rome Statute. It made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 12)

“Norway expressed concern about reports of harassment and discrimination of religious minorities and non-believers in Indonesia. It noted that some human rights defenders experience challenges in operating freely in the Papua provinces. Norway made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 13)

“Responding to observations made, the delegation referred to the situation in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. In order to optimize the implementation of Special Autonomy and expedite the development in Papua as well as West Papua, the Government has established the Special Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua, through Presidential Decrees No. 65/2011 and No. 66/2011. This special Unit has formulated several quick programmes related to the enhancement of food security, poverty eradication, community-based economic development, education, health, and basic infrastructures. The Government continues to be committed to implement and optimize the special autonomy for the two provinces and to pursue the welfare and development approach in the two provinces. Responding to the comment raised on a reported general climate of impunity, the delegation explained that, unlike the past, members of the police and TNI who committed excesses in carrying out their responsibilities to maintain law and order have been held accountable and brought before the relevant courts. The delegation underscored the fact that the Government is keen to ensure that no cases or excesses occur on the part of the military or police in the carrying out of their responsibilities to maintain law and order in the two provinces." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 13)

"The  recommendations  formulated  during  the  interactive  dialogue and listed below enjoy the support of Indonesia:" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 14)

"Complete the process of ratifying international human rights instruments which have not yet been ratified, including CPED and the two Protocols to CRC (Iraq);

In conformity with the third Action Plan on Human Rights, continue to consider ratifying the Rome Statute, OP-CAT and CPED (Chile);

Ratify the CPED, OP-CAT and the Rome Statue of the ICC (Austria);

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, OP-CAT, and the Rome Statute of the ICC, at the earliest opportunity (Slovenia);

Ratify the OP-CAT as well as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to incorporate their provisions into domestic law (Sweden);

Ratify the OP-CAT as well as the Rome Statute as foreseen in the National Human Rights Action Plan 2011-2014 (Switzerland);

Ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC and the OP-CAT (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);

Ratify OP-CAT (Turkey);

Ratify OP-CAT (Maldives);

Ratify and implement the following international instruments: CPED and OP-CAT (Ecuador);

Ratify CPED (Spain);

Continue the efforts to ratify CPED (Argentina);

Ratify as soon as possible CPED and fully incorporate its provisions in the national legislation (Mexico);

Continue its efforts to put in place the conditions for the eventual ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED) (Timor-Leste);

Consider ratifying the CPED as foreseen in the National Human Rights Action Plan, and accelerate the ratification of the ICRMW and the implementation of its provisions (Morocco);" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 14)

"Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,including its Agreement on Privileges and Immunities (Slovakia);

Ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC to be a front runner again within ASEAN (Germany);

Accede to the Rome Statute as amended at the Review Conference in Kampala in 2010 and align its national legislation with the obligations under the Rome Statute, the definition of crimes and principles, including the crime of aggression (Liechtenstein);

Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Australia);

Follow-up on the commitment made in the National Human Rights Action Plan to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and align its national legislation with the provisions of the Court’s Statute (Hungary);

Ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC and to fully align its national legislation with all obligations under the Rome Statue, including incorporating the Rome Statute definition of crimes and general principles, as well as adopting provisions enabling cooperation with the Court (Latvia);

Criminalize torture in its penal code and ratify OP-CAT (France);

Amend the Criminal Code to adopt a definition of torture as a criminal offense, as well as the Law of Criminal Procedure to make it punishable (Spain);

Specifically criminalize torture in your criminal code and ensure that security officials are held accountable for torture and other human rights abuses (United States of America);

Adopt, as a matter of priority, legislation to criminalize torture in line
with article 1 of CAT (New Zealand)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 15)

“Implement comprehensive human rights training, with regular reviews to ensure effectiveness, for all military and police personnel, including those working in the Papua and West Papua provinces (New Zealand);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 16)

"Facilitate the visits of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing and on Health, as well as requests for visits by others, including the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (Republic of Korea)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 17)

"Accelerate efforts for early enactment of the draft new bill which includes the definition of torture consistent with CAT (Republic of Korea);

Effectively take steps to prevent torture including through ratification of the OP-CAT at its earlier opportunity and through the establishment of a comprehensive system of independent monitoring and inspection of all places of detention without delay, regardless of the status of OP-CAT ratification (Denmark)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 17)

Ensure prompt, comprehensive, and effective investigations into credible allegations of human rights violations by members of the security forces, and examine options for establishing an independent review mechanism with the ability to recommend prosecutions (Australia);

"Take measures to guarantee accountability by ensuring that human rights violations, including abuses committed by Indonesian security forces are investigated and that those deemed responsible are prosecuted in a fair prompt and impartial manner (Canada)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 19)

"Hold accountable officials of all ranks responsible for human rights violations in the Papua provinces (Germany)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 19)

"Review laws and decrees currently in force restricting the freedoms of religion, opinion, and of expression, in order to prevent any risk of discrimination (Switzerland)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 20)

“Ensure free access for civil society and national journalists to Papua and West Papua (France);

Enhance efforts to provide adequate protection to human rights defenders and to improve the human rights situations of ethnic and religious groups in certain regions, including Papua (Republic of Korea);

Ensure that provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Code, such as articles 106 and 110 are not misused to restrict the freedom of speech (Germany);

Continue efforts to fully guarantee the protection and independence of human rights defenders (Greece)

Ensure a safe and enabling environment for all human rights defenders (Norway);

Conduct impartial and independent investigations into acts of violence committed against human rights defenders, to bring those responsible to justice and fully guarantee freedom of expression (France)” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 21)

"Strengthen the promotion of the right to education and health in disadvantaged areas (Senegal);

Continue to develop education policies aimed at ensuring access to education for all, especially the poor and those living in rural areas (South Africa)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 21)

"Consider ratifying ILO Convention N° 169 (Norway)" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 23)

"Continue to increase human rights transparency by improving the access of local and international media organisations, engagement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other relevant international organizations throughout Indonesia (Australia)

Immediately grant access to the delegates of ICRC to the Papua provinces in order for them to fulfil their mandate (Germany);

Step up its cooperation with special procedures mandate holders by responding positively to the pending visit requests of special procedures mandate holders and eventually consider extending a standing invitation to all special procedure mandates holders of the Human Rights Council (Latvia);

Issue a standing invitation to all UN Special Procedures (Austria);

Issue a standing invitation to the Special Procedures (Maldives);

Consider extending an open and standing invitation to the Special Procedures (Chile);

Extend an invitation to the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; Independent Expert on minority issues; Special Rapporteur on the right to food; and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples in order that they visit Indonesia, particularly Papua (Mexico);

Consider extending a standing invitation to all Special Procedures (Republic of Korea)"(Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 23)

“Halt immediately reported human rights violations by military and police officers and a general climate of impunity in Papua (Japan);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)

“Ensure free access for foreign journalists to Papua and West Papua (France);”  (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)

“Take steps, particularly in Papua, to increase protection for human rights defenders against stigmatization, intimidation and attacks and to ensure respect for freedom of expression and peaceful protest, including through a review of regulations that can be used to restrict political expression, in particular article 106 and 110 of the criminal code, and the release of those detained solely for peaceful political activities (Canada);" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding multiple incidents involving alleged unlawful killings and torture by state authorities (police and military forces) and non-state actors

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 7/2012, (27 July 2012) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15544

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Dear Mr. Yusup,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 17/5 and 16/23.

In this connection, we would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding the increasing climate of violence in Papua and West Papua, Indonesia, including unlawful killings by both State authorities (police and military forces) and non-State actors and excessive use of force.
 
According to information received:

30 April 2012

The incident of concern reportedly occurred at around 12:00 p.m. when prison guards at Class
II.A. of the Abepura Correctional Facility were bringing detainees back to their cells. Mr. Selfius Bobii, one of the detainees, asked the Head of the Correctional Facility‟s Security Unit (KPLP), Mr. A, for a permit to hold a creative activity with prison inmates. His request was dismissed, which led to an argument between him and the Head of KPLP. Subsequently, the prison guards were instructed to put Mr. Bobii in solitary confinement. Prison inmates, who were witnessing the argument, shouted at the prison guards and requested that Mr. Bobii be returned to his cell.

After the guards had placed Mr. Bobii into solitary confinement, about 20 of them allegedly took 41 prisoners out of their cells, and tortured and ill-treated them for more than two and a half hours, from 12:30 to 3:15 p.m. Prison guards allegedly beat, kicked and hit detainees with their fists, wood blocks and iron sticks. They also allegedly whipped prisoners with thick ropes and dragged them to the yard, where they were asked to walk while guards were beating and kicking them and stepping on some of the prisoners‟ fingers and toes. As a result, it is reported that two prisoners named Messrs. Hendrik Kenelak and Otto Ikinia fainted and another, Mr. Parmen Wenda, had his arm broken.

15 May 2012

On 15 May 2012, at around 5:30 p.m., four young Indonesian men from the Wolani tribe of Degeuwo – named Messrs. Selvius Kegepe, aged 22; Lukas Kegepe (also known as Lukas Tobeta), aged 20; Amos Kegepe, aged 22; and Yulianus Wagepa (also known as Yulianus Kegepe), aged 24 – went to a billiard centre in Lokasi Emas 45 (a gold panning location), Degeuwo, Paniai District, West Papua. Despite the owner‟s refusal to let them play, three of them started playing. Subsequently, the owner called the post commander of the Mobile Police Brigade (Brimob) at Lokasi 99.

At 7:00 p.m., the four men left the billiard room when they heard the Brimob officers outside. After Lukas Kegepe reportedly said, “It is thanks to me and to my land that you are able to eat today!” - literally translated as “You came looking for food on top of my thigh,” referring thereby to mining companies illegally operating in the area - one of the Brimob officers hit him which caused heavy bleeding from his lower lip.

When he heard from his home that an altercation was taking place, Mr. Melianus Kegepe (also known as Melianus Gayampa), aged 23, indigenous Papuan of the Wolani tribe from Paniai and chieftain of his community, reportedly ran to the billiard centre. In an attempt to fight back, he was shot twice in the abdomen and immediately fell to the ground. Amos Kegepe was shot three times, twice in the left leg and in his right calf. Markus and Selvius Kegepe decided to run away, but the latter was shot three times, in the right arm, in the chest and in the right hip. When Lukas Kegepe managed to throw one of the officers to the ground, he ran away, and was shot in the waist.

According to a source, the perpetrators, who are under the command of the Paniai district police, have been identified as the Post Commander of Nomouwodide at Lokasi 99, who was the one who gave the orders, First Police Brigadier B. (equivalent First Sergeant), Second Police Brigadier C. (equivalent Second Sergeant) and Second Police Brigadier D. (equivalent Second Sergeant).

The incident reportedly occurred in an area where mining companies operate illegally and where other private businesses proliferate, including entertainment businesses such as the billiard centre mentioned below. The Mobile Police Brigade (Brimob), a paramilitaryunit of the police, is responsible for the security of the mining area and is under the command of the Paniai district police. There have been concerns raised by indigenous communities about the impartiality of the Brimob, notably reports alleging the use of Brimob officers by companies to provide private security.

We are informed that the Degeuwo community and the victim‟s family filed a complaint and that the Papua Police sent a team to investigate the incident. Yet information received suggests that investigators have not collected testimonies from the alleged victims.

6 June 2012

In the afternoon of 6 June 2012, residents of Kampung Honai Lama village, Wamena, Papua reportedly chased and assaulted two military officers after the officers hit and injured a three-year-old boy who was playing by the side of the road as the officers drove by at high speed on their motorcycles. One of the officers, Mr. Pratu Ahmad Sahlan, was stabbed to death and the other, Mr. Prada Parloi Pardede, was severely injured.

In retaliation, two trucks of army battalion Yonif 756 Wamena allegedly arrived at Kampung Honai Lama village and military officers attacked villagers at 12:00 p.m. on the same day. The military officers reportedly opened fire at villagers, attacked some of them with bayonets, burned down houses and vehicles, and destroyed public property. The attack resulted in the death of a villager, Elinus Yoman. Sixteen individuals, Yeremia Kogoya, Pikenus Wenda, Lenius Wenda, Otniel Krebea, Yuri Bugi, Dapus Nirigi, Pianus Nirigi, Enos Lokmbere, Elianus Kalolik, Tius Hilapok, Pianus Nirigi, Enos Lokmbere, Elianus Kalolik, Tius Hilapok, Perius Seleken, and Jekson Gwijangge were injured. Among the injured, eight of them suffer from severe injuries after having been attacked with knives in the head, neck, back, knees, arms and other parts of the bodies. Many of the villagers have reportedly fled the area and are afraid to return to their homes.

7 June 2012

On 7 June 2012, at 8:30 a.m, Mr. Teyu Tabuni, a resident of Jayapura, Papua, was reportedly shot dead by police officers. This report has been contested by the police. According to its records, Mr. Tabuni‟s death was due to head injuries sustained from falling down while escaping from authorities trying to arrest him. We understand that the body of the deceased was to undergo an autopsy to establish the exact cause of death.

14 June 2012

According to a press release issued by the National Police, in the morning of Thursday, 14 June 2012, a Papuan police officer shot Mr. Mako Tabuni, the deputy chair of the National Committee for West Papua (KNPB), in Abepura, Jayapura regency, after he had taken a firearm belonging to one of the police officers and had tried to escape when officers approached to arrest him. It is reported that one of the officers fired a warning shot, but that Mr. Tabuni pointed the firearm at the police. Thereafter, another police officer shot Mr. Tabuni in his left leg. Mr. Tabuni was taken to Bhanyangkara Police Hospital, where he reportedly died at 10:30 a.m., one hour after being shot.

6 July 2012

On 6 July 2012, the bodies of three individuals, including two civilians named „Aco‟and Ms. Nini Rosmini and a soldier, Warrant Officer Sunaryo, member of Paniai district military command, were found stabbed to death by locals in a house-shop near a gold mine in Ndeotadi which belonged to the soldier. The detailed identity of Aco is not yet known. The bodies reportedly had wounds caused by sharp weapons. The local population had alerted the police after having knocked at the shop‟s door which was locked at 8:00 a.m., although the shop was  usually open at 6:00 a.m.

9 July 2012

On 9 July 2012, at around 6:30 a.m., Ms. Eva Cristianity was found stabbed to death on the streets of Jayapura - on the side of the street linking the Kodam building and Jayapura‟s Mayor Office - in the same district of Paniai, Papua. She was the wife of the First Sergeant Mohammad Mahdi of the Indonesian Regional Military Command XVII Cendrawasih assigned to Jayapura.

In this context, despite the commitment made by the Indonesian President in February 2012, we are informed that investigations of alleged abuses by security forces are not consistently carried out. Additionally, under the Indonesian Law on Military Tribunals, Law No. 31/1997, the military court has jurisdiction over crimes committed by military officers, although such crimes do not have a military nature such as murder, criminalized in article 338 of the Penal Code.

In light of the information received, we are gravely concerned about the reported increasing climate of violence, including killings committed by both State authorities and civilians including identified individuals in Indonesia.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of the allegations, we wish to appeal to your Government to seek clarification of the circumstances of the present cases as described above and wish to recall the relevant international principles and norms applicable to the present cases.

Under article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Indonesia has acceded to on 23 February 2006, the Indonesian Government has the obligation to protect every individual‟s right to life and to ensure that no individual on its territory or subject to its jurisdiction is arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. Such protection should apply to all individuals without discrimination on any grounds whatsoever in accordance with article 2(1) of the ICCPR.

In its General Comment on article 6, the Human Rights Committee stated that “[t]he protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article 6 (1) is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces… Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his [or her] life by such authorities.” (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9, Vol. I, p. 177, para. 3).

The use of lethal force by law enforcement officials is strictly regulated under international law.

In this regard, we would like to draw your Government’ s attention the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169) and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Principle 4 which provides that, “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms.” Furthermore, principle 5 provides that, “Whenever the use of force and firearms is unavoidable law enforcement officials shall, (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate object to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment and (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.” (adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990).

In respect of the reported deaths, we wish to underline that “[t]here shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, including cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances,” in accordance with principle 9 the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (adopted by the Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65). Principle 18 further requires Governments to “ ensure that persons identified by the investigation as having participated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions in any territory under their jurisdiction are brought to justice.” We wish to recall that the families and dependents of victims of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions shall be entitled to fair and adequate compensation within a reasonable period of time pursuant to principle 20.

Concerning the fact that military tribunals have jurisdiction over crimes committed by military officers which do not have a military nature, we emphasize the provisions of the Draft Principles Governing the Administration of Justice Through Military Tribunals. According to its principle 9, “[i]n all circumstances, the jurisdiction of military courts should be set aside in favour of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to conduct inquiries into serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, … and torture, and to prosecute and try persons accused of such crimes.” (E/CN.4/2006/58). The scope of such principle has been included in the updated Set of Principles for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity, according to which “[t]he jurisdiction of military tribunals must be restricted solely to specifically military offences committed by military personnel, to the exclusion of human rights violations, which shall come under the jurisdiction of the ordinary domestic courts or, where appropriate, in the case of serious crimes under international law, of an international or internationalized criminal court.” (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add. 1, principle 29).

Finally, with regard to the incident on 30 April 2012 at the Abepura Correctional Facility, we would like to draw the attention of your Government to paragraph 1 of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 which “ [c]ondemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all States to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

In view of the urgency of the matter, we would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Government to investigate and respond to the alleged violations in compliance with the forementioned international instruments.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters, when relevant to the case under consideration:

1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the cases accurate? Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to these cases to corroborate or refute the allegations.

2. When relevant, please indicate which branches of the police, security forces or armed forces were involved in the alleged incidents and what instructions they have received/issued in relation to the aforementioned cases. Kindly specify how these comply with international standards set forth inter alia in the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

3. Has a complaint been lodged by or on behalf of the alleged victims? In that case, what action has been undertaken upon receipt of the complaints?

4. Please provide the full details of any judicial proceedings and prosecutions which have been undertaken. Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the victims or their families.

We undertake to ensure that your Government‟s response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the report we will submit to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

While waiting for your response, we urge your Government to carry out a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged violations. In the event that your investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations should be ensured. We also request that your Government adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Please accept, Mr. Yusup, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Christof Heyns
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Juan E. Méndez
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Human Rights Council, 27 July 2012)


Special Procedures Communication regarding allegations of harassment of members of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB)

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 6/2012, (24 July 2012) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=16052

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom ofopinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions;
and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 16/4, 15/21, 17/5, and 16/23.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information we have received concerning the harassment of members of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in the exercise of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly in two separate events, resulting in the death of Messrs Theorelli Karoba, Yesa Mirin and Panuel Tablo, and the arrest and detention of 45 individuals, several of whom were physically assaulted by security forces.

According to the information received:

On 1 May 2012, Mr. Theorelli Karoba was reportedly shot dead in front of the military base Koramil in Abepura after attending a peaceful demonstration, organized by the KNPB, to commemorate 1 May 1963, the day West Papua (then known as West New Guinea) became a province of Indonesia and which is considered as “Annexation Day” by those West Papuans who seek independence. The victim was travelling in a truck to Waena when gunfire was reportedly heard from the direction of the military base.

On 4 June 2012, members of the KNPB, travelling in a convoy of eleven trucks, were on their way to Abepura to hold a peaceful protest in front of the office of the local autonomy parliament when they stopped in Kampung Harapan to pick up additional participants in the protest. The police present in the locality then ordered the protestors to disperse because the organizers of the protest did not have a permit. According to the information received, the organizers did request in advance a permit to the Papua Regional Police, in compliance with Law No. 9 Year 1998 regarding the Freedom to Express Opinion in Public. However, the police refused to issue a permit, allegedly
with no justification.

When arriving in Telaga Maya, the protestors were blocked by armed security officers in armoured vehicles, allegedly from the Jayapura District Police, Sentani Sub-District Police, and the Indonesian Military, who ordered them to disperse. The coordinator of the demonstration then called on the protestors to return home. The protestors were marching back home, followed by security officers. When the protestors reached Kampung Harapan, they attempted to sit down to rest, but the security officers refused and opened fire to intimidate and disperse them. Chaos reportedly ensued. The security officers fired again at the protestors, shooting indiscriminately and killing Mr. Yesa Mirin and Mr. Panuel Tablo. 45 female and male protestors were arrested and brought to Sentani Sub-District Police Station. They were all released on 7 June without charges. Many protestors were seriously injured due to the use of excessive force by security forces against them.

Among the 45 protestors detained were:

• Mr. Jekson Wenda, who was shot in his back, stabbed in his right arm, and kicked in the stomach;
• Mr. Ericson Suhuniap, who was reportedly beaten around 10 times on his head, slapped four times on his ears, stabbed in his right thigh, and suffered a burn injury;
• Mr. Enos Yoal, who was beaten on his eyes, mouth and neck, strangled and stomped by security officers;
• Mr. Efesus Payage, who was beaten on his arms and stomped by security officers. His head was injured, requiring ten stitches;
• Mr. Yobet Bahabol, who was beaten on his head, sustaining head injuries, and stomach, stomped by security officers, and stabbed in his left and right ankles; and
• Mr. Jursen Suhuniap, who was beaten and stomped by security officers, requiring ten stitches to his head.

Many protesters ran away to the nearby lake and mountains for their safety. They were followed by the security officers who searched for them. Several hours later, the protestors left their hiding places. It is reported that a number of protestors are still in hiding fearing for their lives.

Grave concerns are expressed that the death of Messrs Theorelli Karoba, Yesa Mirin and Panuel Tablo, and the ill-treatment, arrest and detention of the aforementioned protestors, may be linked to the exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of opinion and expression.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we wish to appeal to your Excellency’s Government to seek clarification of the circumstances regarding the cases of the persons named above. We would like to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Indonesia acceded to on 23 February 2006, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

Under article 3 of the UDHR and article 6 of the ICCPR, every individual has the right to life and security, this right shall be protected by law and no individual shall be arbitrarily be deprived of his or life.

The deprivation of life by the authorities of a State is a matter of the utmost gravity. In this regard, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency's Government to principle 4 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which provides that, “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms.” Furthermore, principle 5 provides that, “Whenever the use of force and firearms is unavoidable law enforcement officials shall, (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate object to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment and (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.” (adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990).

Concerning the reported deaths, there shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extrajudicial executions in line with principle 9 of the Principles on Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65.

We would also like to refer to article 19 of the ICCPR, which provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

Similarly, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency's Government to article 21 of the ICCPR, which provides that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security of public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ”

In this context, we would like to refer to Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[c]alls upon States to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peace fully and associate freely... including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law.”

We would also like to refer to the first thematic report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (A/HRC/20/27), which provides that “[t]he exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be subject to prior authorization by the authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure, which should not be burdensome. In case an assembly is not allowed or restricted, a detailed and timely written explanation should be provided, which can be appealed before an impartial and independent court ”(para. 90). In addition, “States should facilitate and protect peaceful assemblies, including through negotiation and mediation. Wherever possible, law enforcement authorities should not resort to force during peaceful assemblies and ensure that, “where force is absolutely necessary, no one is subject to excessive or indiscriminate use of force” (Council resolution 19/35, para. 6)” (para. 89). The Special Rapporteur further calls on States, inter alia, “[t]o ensure that administrative and law enforcement officials are adequately trained in relation to the respect of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; [t]o ensure that law enforcement authorities which violate the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are held personally and fully accountable for such violations by an independent and democratic oversight body, and by the courts of law; and [t]o ensure that victims of violations and abuses of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association have to the right to an effective remedy and obtain redress” (para. 84 (h) (i) and (j)).

Finally, as it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the case accurate?

2. Has a complaint been lodged by or on behalf of the above-referenced victims?

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical, judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.

4. Please advise if Mr. Wenda, Mr. E. Suhuniap, Mr. Yoal, Mr. Payage and Mr.Bahabol and Mr. J. Suhuniap have received medical care for their injuries, including access to independent and qualified medical professionals

5. Please indicate the legal basis of the use of force, and arrest and detention, of peaceful protestors, and how these measures are compatible with international norms and standards, as contained, inter alia, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearmsby Law Enforcement Officials and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

6. Please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken. Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators, particularly those who have been identified as having killed or injured the above-referenced victims.

7. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the victims or the family of the victims.

We would appreciate a response within sixty days.

Your Excellency’s Government’s response will be made available in a report to the Human Rights Council  for its consideration.

While waiting for your response, we urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of the above mentioned persons are respected and, in the event that your investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations should be ensured. We also request that your Excellency’s Government adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Maina Kiai
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Christof Heyns
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Juan E. Méndez
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Human Rights Council, 24 July 2012)


Special Procedures Communication regarding allegations of various human rights violations in relation to the MIFEE Project

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 7/2011, (1 February 2012) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=22422

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food
and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the right to food and Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and to Human Rights Council resolution 13/4 and 15/14.

In this connection, we wish to bring to the attention of your Government information we received regarding the impact that the Meruake Integrated Food and Energy Estate project allegedly is having, and may continue to have, on the enjoyment of various human rights of the local indigenous communities. In particular we wish to draw attention to information regarding the non-consensual conversion of indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands and forests. We also wish to draw attention to information received about the treatment of individuals who met to discuss the project, and the possible violations of their civil and political rights.

According to the information we received:

The Government-authorized Meruake Integrated Food and Energy Estate project (“MIFEE project”) is designed to produce crops (maize and rice), palm oil, timber products and agro-fuels, primarily for export. The projected is located in East Papua, right along the border with Papua New Guinea. Numerous indigenous communities populate this area and rely on the forests for hunting and food collection. Some of these communities have already allegedly lost access to their food sources and means of subsistence and numerous others fear that they will soon lose their livelihoods as well as their access to food.

Project scope and deforestation. Reports on the exact amount of land to be allocated to the project differ. According to information received, government documents presently list the total targeted area for the project at 1,282,833 hectares (423,251.3 hectares in 2010–2014; 632,504.8 hectares in 2015–2019; and 227,076.9 hectares in 2020-2030). However, other information available through the Local Investment Promotion Board (Badan Promosi Investasi Daerah),suggests that 36 companies have acquired permits to more than 2 million hectares as of May 2011.

The allegations received indicate that much of this allocated land has or will be deforested in order to allow for palm oil, maize, rice and timber estates. According to reports, there are currently seven operational permits covering an area of 760,000 hectares. This includes an Indonesian company, MedCo Grop which allegedly has received a permit for 360,000 hectares that will allow it to clear up to 60 per cent of the forests in the plot. We have been told that virtually the entire forest of the Zanegi indigenous community –  located within this concession area – has already been cut down.

In addition to the concessions already provided, it is alleged that the Merauke Integrated Rice Estates Company has applied to the Department of Agriculture for permission to obtain 1.2 million hectares for a large-scale rice cultivation initiative in the MIFEE project area. According to sources, 96 per cent of this area is classified as “forest” by the State, despite the fact that Malind and other indigenous peoples (including the Muyu, Mandobo, Mappi and Auyu) claim the entirety of this area as their traditional lands and territories from which they derive their means of subsistence as well as the foundation for their identities, unique cultures and spirituality.

Number of people affected. According to some reports received, a great number of families, in particular those from indigenous communities, have already been affected by the land acquisitions and the number affected is going to grow as more concessions are made. To date, indigenous Papuans (to which the Malind and other indigenous peoples in the Merauke region belong) allegedly have already lost a considerable area of their traditional territories due to logging, mining, oil palm plantations and population transfers.

Allegations suggest that the MIFEE project will continue to impact particularly the Malind, who number approximately 50,000 persons, but also other indigenous peoples, including the Muyu, Mandobo, Mappi and Auyu. The Malind, like numerous other peoples in the area, primarily subsist by collecting sago, hunting and fishing. In this way they are dependent on the forest and forest ecosystem for their basic needs as well as their traditional economy.

Consent. Information received suggests that the local indigenous communities have not been provided good faith consultations regarding the changes in land use of their traditional territories. Further, the information received indicates that no procedures were put in place to obtain the free prior informed consent from the indigenous populations whose territories have allegedly been converted to alternate uses. There are further suggestions that no legitimate consultation procedures have been established regarding potential future land changes either.

According to reports received, the MIFEE project has also not been implemented in conformity to extant domestic laws that require accounting for land conversion. Documents provided suggest that under Indonesian law in order to obtain concessions and permits to engage in certain industries, including operating palm oil plantations, applicant companies must demonstrate that there are no third party rights to the area in question. Further, documents provided suggest that in the case of indigenous peoples who by virtue of Indonesian law generally live on State lands, companies are required to obtain signed certificates demonstrating that the indigenous peoples have relinquished all interest in the land in question. The allegations suggest that this is an administrative requirement incumbent on the companies that received concessions through the MIFEE project as part of showing security of title.

Companies receiving concessions under the MIFEE project have allegedly used coercive practices to obtain the required signatures of individuals relinquishing their rights. A recent study concluded that local populations were ill-prepared to sign the consent forms and to deal with the legal consequences and intricacies of the land-acquisition and consent process. The study indicated further that negotiations between indigenous land-owners and plantation companies have been unequal and exploitative and that children as young as four have been required to sign contracts that allow access to land for years to come. The study claimed that promised benefits, like schools, electricity and houses, were often not-provided, and compensation for land and timber has been small and insufficient. According to the study, children as young as four were being asked to sign the contracts for the land.

Access to food. According to reports, the MIFEE project has reduced food availability for local populations, and concern is expressed that food availability will continue to decrease in the future. Reports attribute this decrease to the deforestation of the area allocated to the MIFEE project. These forests reportedly serve as the key food source for local indigenous communities who rely on them for hunting and gathering purposes. For example, the Zanegi indigenous peoples allegedly have lost physical access to the animals they used to hunt and the food they used to collect in the forest, as virtually the entire forest they used as their food source has been razed.

In other forests, game animals that provided the primary source of protein for local indigenous peoples allegedly have already begun to dwindle in number and are likely to disappear from the area.

According to the allegations received, the forests are being replaced with monocrop agriculture, which can be detrimental to ecosystems. Further, the plants being introduced through monocrop agriculture are reportedly not food sources consumed by the local populations. Finally, allegations have been raised that even when the forests are not cut down, indigenous populations are often being denied entry, which hinders their access to food.

Additionally, accounts sent to us indicate concern that MIFEE project and those proposed, will lead to a large influx of population in the area, which may result in even further limitations in accessing food. The project allegedly will require 4.8 million workers, a number that currently exceeds the existing population of the entire province of Papua. We have been informed that the access to food with become even more constrained by increased demand when migrants come to the area looking for work.

Intimidation of community members. Allegations received suggest that Papua provincial police and national military intelligence have employed intimidation tactics to dissuade local community members from raising concerns about the MIFEE project. These allegations claim that uninvited representatives of the Papua provincial police force and national military intelligence attended a community meeting and training about MIFEE and human rights held in Meruake from 22 to 25 July 2011, and proceeded to harass and intimidate the leaders and representatives of the meeting. Further, the allegations describe that on the first day of the meeting, at least 12 police and military intelligence officers entered the meeting uninvited and tried to shut it down claiming that particular rules were not followed to register the meeting or the presence of the indigenous peoples’ foreign advisor. According to the allegations, the officers attempted to remove the foreign legal advisor from the meeting. The allegations continue claiming that for a day and a half the police and military officials refused to permit this legal advisor to conduct planned human rights training and demanded copies of her presentation prior to providing any authorization. The allegations also state that on the first day of the meeting a military officer sat at the doorway observing all the activities and entered the room several times to take photographs of all of the participants, the facilitator, the foreign advisor and even the local interpreter. Finally, the allegations suggest that throughout the meeting officers continued their presences, showing up in the evenings to ask questions, and at times parking a security vehicle outside of the venue.

Indigenous Populations: We are aware that the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination sent a letter dated 2 September 2011 to your Excellency regarding the same facts outlined here. In this letter the Chairperson expressed concern on behalf of the Committee regarding the implications of large-scale land acquisitions for local indigenous communities and raised questions regarding the implementation of recommendations for improving the situation of indigenous peoples in Indonesia provided by the Committee in paragraph 22 of its concluding observations (CERD/C/IND/CO/3) of 15 August 2007, and in particular measures taken to effectively seek the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities before carrying out the MIFEE project.

With more expansion activities intended, concerns are expressed that the large-scale land acquisitions currently and will continue to affect the ability of local populations to feed themselves. This is worrying given that 87 million Indonesians are currently food insecure, 25 million of whom are severely food insecure. More specifically, concerns have been expressed that the long-term effects of deforestation, monocrop agriculture and the new influx in population will lead to increased competition over scare resources that will drive up prices and further limit access to adequate food for the local indigenous populations and severely strain the already diminishing food supply.

Concerns are expressed that, at a minimum, the deprivation of ancestral lands through alienation to third parties and the likely displacement of indigenous peoples as a result of a large influx of non-indigenous individuals will interfere in the rights of Malind and other indigenous peoples to access traditional food sources.

Finally, concerns are raised that the MIFEE project leaves the affected indigenous peoples of Merauke with a profoundly compromised future, severely diminished livelihood options and, given that the plantations are monocrop that require clearance of the forests and other ecosystems on which indigenous peoples depend, the destruction of their traditional economy, systems of livelihoods and consequently, right to food.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to the applicable international human rights norms and standards and, in particular, the following:

With respect to the right to food, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right of everyone “to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” Furthermore article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – which Indonesia acceded to on 23 February 2006 – stipulates that States “recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions,” and requires them to “take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right.”

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors the implementation of the Covenant, has defined the core content of the right to food in its General Comment No. 12, along with the corresponding obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food. The Committee considers that the core content of the right to adequate food implies, inter alia, availability of food which refers to the possibilities either for feeding oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources, or for well-functioning distribution, processing and market systems that can move food from the site of production to where it is needed in accordance with demand, and accessibility of food which encompasses both economic and physical accessibility. The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people’s access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security. Finally, whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, States have the obligation to fulfill (provide) that right directly.

The right to adequate food is recognized also in the Convention on the Rights of the Child – acceded to by Indonesia on 5 September 1990 – in articles 24.2(c) and 27.3. In the Convention, the right to adequate food is to be read in conjunction with the right to life, survival and development stipulated in article 6. States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child commit themselves to combat “disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, (...) the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water.”

The right to adequate food may be under severe threat when land on which people depend for their subsistence is traded away, for instance for the development of large- scale agricultural or industrial projects. This is why the Special Rapporteur on the right to food considered it necessary to restate the human rights obligations of States in this is regard in a set of minimum principles and measures to address the human rights challenge, presented as an addendum to the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to the Human Rights Council at its 13th session (March 2010) (A/HRC/13/33/Add.2).

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 provides in article 8(2), b), that States should prohibit “any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing [indigenous peoples] of their lands, territories or resources.” It also prohibits any forcible removal of indigenous peoples from their lands or territories, imposing requirements of free, prior and informed consent, agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, the option of return, for relocations (art. 10). A number of other provisions of the Declaration relate to the right of indigenous peoples to the lands, territories and resources “which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” which they may “own, use, develop and control,” imposing that these lands, territories and resources be legally recognized and that indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems be recognized.

In addition, the right to self-determination of peoples and, specifically, the right of all peoples freely to dispose of their natural wealth and resources – as stipulated under article 1 of both 1966 Covenants – protect indigenous peoples from certainforms of dispossession from their territories or from the resources on which they depend. Article 1(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – in conjunction with article 27, which recognizes the rights of minorities – guarantees the right of people to maintain their cultural connections, including their way of life, over the lands and resources upon which they rely.

On the basis of article 5(d)(v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination also recommends States parties to “recognize and protect the rights of all indigenous communities to own, develop and control the lands which they traditionally occupy, including water and subsoil resources.” Furthermore, in light of its General Recommendation No. 23 on indigenous peoples (1997), the Committee calls upon State parties to the Convention to “recognize and respect indigenous distinct culture, history, language and way of life as an enrichment of the State’s cultural identify and to promote its preservation; ensure that members of indigenous peoples are free and equal in dignity and rights and free from any discrimination, in particular that based on indigenous origin or identity; provide indigenous peoples with conditions allowing for a sustainable economic and social development compatible with their cultural characteristic; ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent; ensure that indigenous communities can exercise their rights to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs and to preserve and to practice their languages,” and “to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources and, where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used without their free and informed consent, to take steps to return those lands and territories.” It is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts  summarized above accurate?

2. Have complaints been lodged by local communities, including indigenous communities, about the MIFEE project?

3. Has a human rights impact assessment been carried out regarding the MIFEE project? If so, who undertook such an assessment and could you please provide us with the conclusions of the assessment?

4. Have the potential human rights, social and environmental impacts been considered in relation to the MIFFEE project? If so, could you please provide us with examples?

5. What measures associated with the MIFEE project have been or are being put in place to ensure that the enjoyment of the right to adequate food of the local population shall not be affected?

6.To what extent have the concerned communities been allowed to participate in the MIFEE project development and decisions regarding what lands to be allocated? Can you describe any process in place to receive the consent of indigenous peoples for the project?

7. To what extent have measures of compensation been put in place for all concerned persons who will lose access to their food sources? What measures have been taken to ensure that those who may lose access to the forests are offered alternative sustainable means to access sufficient and adequate food?

We would be most grateful to receive an answer within 60 days. We undertake to ensure that the response of your Excellency’s Government will be taken into account in our assessment of the situation and in developing any recommendations that we may make for your Government’s consideration pursuant to the terms of our respective mandates. Additionally, we undertake to ensure that the response of your Excellency’s Government is accurately reflected in the reports we will submit to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency , the assurances of our highest consideration.

Olivier De Schutter
Special Rapporteur on the right to food

James Anaya
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples” (Human Rights Council, 1 February 2012)

 

2011

 Information on the Implementation of Articles 1 to 16 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) in Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Committee Against Torture, List of issues prior to the submission of the third periodic report of Indonesia (CAT/C/IDN/3), Specific information on the implementation of articles 1 to 16 of the Convention, including with regard to the Committee’s previous recommendations, CAT/C/IDN/Q/3 (15 February 2011), available from http://undocs.org/CAT/C/IDN/Q/3.

"There is reportedly still widespread impunity for members of the security forces responsible for serious violations of human rights, including torture, throughout the country and particularly in Papua, Aceh, the Malukus and Kalimantan. It is also reported that none of the existing  mechanisms has either the mandate or the independence to hold police officers accountable for human rights violations. Please provide the Committee with statistical information, disaggregated by crime committed, region and rank, on the number of allegations or complaints of torture or ill-treatment at the hands of members of the security forces that have led to investigations, prosecutions, and convictions, if any, on any grounds, as well as information on the punishments provided for in the case of persons found guilty of torture or any other offence related to such allegations and their current fates." (Committee Against Torture 15.02.2011, p. 2 f)  
 
In light of the Committee’s previous concluding observations (para.  21), please provide information on measures taken to prevent harassment and violence against human rights defenders, in particular with regard to the reported criminalization of their activities, alleged stigmatization of them as separatists (Aceh and West Papua), and other forms of intimidation and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. Please provide information on: 
 
(a) Steps taken to ensure that all persons, including those monitoring human rights, are protected from any intimidation, unjust imprisonment  or violence as a result of their activities as well as the prompt, impartial and effective investigation of such acts. Please comment on reports of widespread impunity for violations committed against human rights activists.[...]
 
(b) Specific legal framework recognizing the existence of human rights defenders and their role in the promotion and protection of human rights. Does the State party envisage amending or repealing all provisions of its Criminal Code that have been used to imprison individuals for their peaceful activities in conformity with international standards? Please provide the number of prisoners sentenced under articles 106, 110, 160, 310 and 335 of the Criminal Code.
 
The status of draft laws, which would reportedly hamper the work of human rights defenders, including the amended Law on Mass Organizations, the draft Law on Reserve Forces for State Defense (KCPN) and the draft State Secret Law." (Committee Against Torture 15.02.2011, p. 4 f)
 
"In addition, please provide the Committee with information on the steps taken to support and protect the work of human rights defenders at the provincial and local level as well as in regions with special autonomy. Please comment on the concerns about the situation of human rights defenders in the West Papua province." (Committee Against Torture 15.02.2011, p. 5)

 

Special Procedures Communication regarding threats against Papuan human rights defender Yones Douw

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Communication by Special Procedures, AL IDN 5/2011, (30 August 2011) available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15940

Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Excellency,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and to Human Rights Council resolution 16/5.
 
In this connection, we would like to bring to your Excellency’s Government’s attention information we have received concerning the assault and on-going surveillance by members of the Indonesian security forces on Mr. Yones Douw. Mr. Douw, a human rights defender, has been active in documenting human rights abuses by the military and police over the past ten years.

According to the information received:

On 15 June 2011, Mr. Douw attended a protest at the 1750 District Military Command (Kodim) base in Nabire, in the province of Papua. The purpose of the protest was to call for accountability for the killing of a Papuan on 14 May 2011, allegedly at the hands of military officers. Mr. Douw reportedly went to the site of the protest in order to monitor it.

Reportedly, soon after he arrived at the scene, a group of protestors broke through the entrance gates of the base and began to throw objects. Mr. Douw allegedly went into the base and attempted to calm the protestors. In reaction to the protestors, the military officers fired shots in the air and began to hit the protestors. It is reported that Mr. Douw was struck several times on the head with pieces of wood and his shoulder and wrists were injured as a result of being beaten. Mr. Douw allegedly heard the military threaten to shoot the protestors.

After the incident, Mr. Douw reportedly went to the Sirwinii hospital for treatment for his injuries. However, on his arrival he was informed that he would not be treated without a letter from the police at which stage he decided to return home. X- rays carried out reportedly revealed that Mr. Douw has a blood clot in his head and a fracture to his hand for which he is receiving on-going medical treatment. However, he continues to suffer from headaches and pains in the back of his head and in his hand.

On 1 July 2011, while Mr. Douw was on his way to receive medical treatment, he was informed that police intelligence officers received a text message by a senior police official in Nabire asking your surveillance to Mr. Douw.

On 15 July 2011, Mr. Douw was allegedly informed by a source that the Nabire District Police Station had instructed officers to monitor his movements around Nabire. Since this date, Mr. Douw has allegedly observed motorbikes reving their engines as they pass him and noticed strangers waiting near his home.

Mr. Douw has previously been subjected to violence at the hands of police officials when in January 2009 he was physically assaulted during his arrest at a demonstration in Nabire. At that time, he was attempting to intervene in a clash between police and demonstrators. He was reportedly denied food and water during his one day detention.

Concern is expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Yones Douw, in view of the assault and the on-going surveillance to which he is allegedly being subjected. Further concern is expressed that Mr. Douw may be being targeted as a direct result of his peaceful work in documenting human rights violations, particularly as he attempted to curtail violence at the demonstration on 15 June 2011.

Without in any way implying any determination on the facts of the case, I would like to refer your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in particular articles 1 and 2 which state that "everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels” and that “each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice."

Furthermore, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government the following provisions of the Declaration:

With regards to the role of media and human rights defenders in monitoring demonstrations, I would like to refer to the Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), available at www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_23835.html., and to my 2007 report to the General Assembly (of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders) (A/62/225, paras. 91 and 93) that underline how “monitoring of assemblies can provide an impartial and objective account of what takes place, including a factual record of the conduct of both participants and law enforcement officials. [...] The very presence of human rights monitors during demonstrations can deter human rights violations. It is therefore important to allow human rights defenders to operate freely in the context of freedom of assembly. [...]Journalists as well have an important ole to play in providing independent coverage of demonstrations and protests. [...] The media must therefore have access to assemblies and the policing operations mounted to facilitate them.

- article 12, paras 2 and 3 of the Declaration which provide that the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I urge your Excellency's Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of Mr. Douw are respected and, in the event that your investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, the accountability of any person responsible of the alleged violations should be ensured. I also request that your Excellency’s Government adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government to safeguard the rights of Mr. Douw in compliance with the above international instruments.

Moreover, it is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council,to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters, when relevant to the case under consideration:

1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?

2. Has a complaint been lodged by or on behalf of Mr. Yones Douw?

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.

4. Please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken. Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

5. Please provide full details of any steps taken or protective measures which have been put in place to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and security of Mr. Yones Douw?

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Margaret Sekaggya
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders” (Human Rights Council, 30 August 2011)

 

2010

under construction

2009

under construction

2008

Universal Periodic Review - 1st cycle

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Indonesia, A/HRC/8/23 (14 May 2008), available from undocs.org/A/HRC/8/23

“Germany commended Indonesia on its NHRAP (2004-2009) noting that it can be a platform to address shortcomings in a systematic and transparent manner, and requested information on provisions to end impunity and to guarantee effective prosecution of human rights violations. It requested information on (a) how the issue of the crime of torture is addressed in the draft Criminal Code; (b) what progress has been made with respect to upgrading CRC ratification and the ratification of its two optional protocols; (b) concrete measures envisaged to guarantee effective habeas corpus, and especially to grant detainees access to legal counsel and medical care; and (d) how violence against women is treated in the Criminal Code. Germany further noted that according to several special procedures mandate holders, the human rights situation in Papua and the situation of those who raise issues of human rights violations are issues of concern. It asked which measures Indonesia intends to take, including at the local level, to address the situation in Papua and to address also the underlying causes such as poverty and the high rate of unemployment. Germany also asked what measures can be taken by the authorities to protect human rights defenders who are threatened for their activities and if there are any plans to appoint a special contact person for human rights defenders at the provincial level.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 10)

“Canada noted some of the positive steps taken, including Indonesia’s commitment to ratify this year key human rights instruments such as the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Canada also noted that as is the case of all countries, additional efforts are needed to improve the human rights situation in Indonesia, especially in regions where recent or ongoing political tensions are manifest, such as Papua. It requested information on how Indonesia will ensure that labelling of individuals as separatists in these areas is not used to suppress legitimate democratic activity by civil society, including peaceful public protests and criticism. Canada referred to the need to raise awareness of the role of human rights defenders and of the responsibility of the security forces to protect them. In this regard, it recommended that Indonesia provide additional human rights training to security forces and encouraged it to take concrete steps to improve respect for the rule of law and to punish those responsible for abuses and violations. Canada also recommended that additional specific measures be taken to ensure that the rights of those belonging to minority groups are protected, including from abuses committed by non-State actors. It also enquired about the measures Indonesia plans to take to ensure that perpetrators of such abuses are brought to justice and on avenues of redress available to victims. While noting that Canada has provided concrete support to Indonesia’s efforts to reform governance through decentralization, it asked what measures Indonesia plans to take to ensure that local authorities do not contravene national and international human rights law. Canada also noted that, as a troika member, they would like to underline the very constructive dialogue it had had with Indonesia in the context of the review.”  (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 11)

“In response to questions asked, Indonesia noted that a number of delegations made many valuable suggestions with regard to the protection of women, the protection of children, which they appreciate and will consider seriously as they continue to make progress in these areas. The suggestion for a bilateral dialogue is appreciated and welcomed. On the situation in Papua, it considers this question as one of support to Indonesia’ efforts to improve the welfare of Papuans and the people of Indonesia. A member of the delegation, who is a representative of the local government of Papua and a Papuan himself, noted that the development process in Papua is centred around the Papuans themselves. Economic and health assistance were provided and efforts are made to combat poverty and promote employment, and achievements are made with the participation of the people. He noted that in addressing the human rights violence in Papua, many capacity-building and other programmes have been implemented throughout the region, including training for the communities to understand their rights.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 11)

“The United Kingdom welcomed the substantial progress Indonesia continues to make on human rights, noting that since 1998, the overall human rights situation has improved significantly. The United Kingdom noted the increasing openness to international scrutiny, as evidenced by the visits to the country of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders in June 2007 and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture in November 2007, at the invitation of the Indonesian Government. It also welcomed the improvement in the human rights situation in Aceh since the 2005 Peace Agreement, as noted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. However, many challenges remain, particularly in Papua. It also noted the concerns raised by the above-mentioned special procedures following their visits, including violations suffered by human rights defenders and police abuse of detainees in custody in various parts of Indonesia. The United Kingdom requested information on how Indonesia intended to take forward the recommendations on human rights defenders and to respond to concerns raised by the Special Rapporteur on the question on torture, including police abuse of detainees in custody and serious overcrowding of prisons. It welcomed the expressed intention to strengthen efforts to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OP-CAT) and recommended that Indonesia ratify it at the earliest opportunity. It welcomed information provided on the involvement of civil society in the preparation of Indonesia’s national report for the Universal Periodic Review and recommended that civil society also be fully involved in the follow-up to this session.”  (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 11f)

“The Netherlands also acknowledged that much had been achieved by Indonesia in the area of human rights, noting that as a developing country, Indonesia paid much attention to education and children’s and women’s rights. It also noted with appreciation the additional information on political and civil rights provided in the national report and in its oral presentation. Regarding the cultural and ethnic diversity of the country, it asked how Indonesia will protect human rights defenders in Papua and on how it prevents discrimination against ethnic and other minorities. It also recommended the lifting of reservations to a number of human rights treaties, and asked that OP-CAT be ratified at Indonesia’s earliest possible convenience. It further welcomed Indonesia’s efforts to bring its national legislation in line with its international obligations and would recommend the inclusion of the prohibition of torture in its Criminal Code.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 12)

“The Republic of Korea welcomed all measures taken by Indonesia to enhance the enjoyment of human rights in the country, as well as the preparation and implementation of the Second National Action Plan (2004-2009). It also noted positive developments in the area of civil and political rights, including freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, political freedoms such as the freedom of election, and the growth of civil society that enables a stronger involvement of NGOs in the policy-making process. While noting the quality of the national report, the Republic of Korea also noted that recent developments and challenges of economic, social and cultural rights were not properly included as an independent part of the national report, as prescribed by the guidelines. While welcoming the explanation given by Indonesia regarding recent initiatives to revise criminal law it asked if Indonesia had a specific plan to include torture as a crime in the Criminal Code. It also asked if the Government has any concrete plan to strengthen measures to better protect the human rights of indigenous people, in particular in the process of exploitation of natural resources.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 12)

“The United States of America referred to the use of civil and criminal defamation laws and tools for silencing dissenting voices and noted the vital role of the news media in creating broad awareness of political, economic and social issues, and asked what plans there are, if any, to amend the defamation laws. It also referred to reports of arrest and detention of peaceful political activists and asked what is being done to uphold the rights of such activists.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 12f)

“In response to questions, Indonesia noted the many valuable suggestions, recommendations and acknowledgements of achievements by previous speakers. With regard to cooperation with special procedures, Indonesia had invited a number of special procedures and while it cannot confirm now which other special procedures will be invited in the future, it noted that based on previous practice, and with a spirit of maintaining a constructive dialogue and with a view to reinforcing the protection and promotion of human rights in the country, Indonesia could extend other invitations in the future. Indonesia noted the importance of the recommendation to include the definition of torture in its legislation, and indicated that it has already included it in the bill of the Criminal Code currently under review.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 13)

“France asked if Indonesia envisages signing the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and in this regard, what difficulties they would confront to sign and ratify this Convention. It requested information on measures taken to investigate reported cases of intimidation and ill-treatment against human rights defenders and to bring those responsible to justice. It asked that not only law enforcement, but also judges and prosecutors should be sensitized, and requested information on measures taken or envisaged to investigate alleged torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, and to bring these to the attention of the judiciary. It also asked whether sensitization on human rights issues was envisaged in the framework of training for law enforcement officials, and what measures Indonesia envisaged topromote and improve respect human rights in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. “ (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 14f)

“... The establishment of the Judicial Court was also noted. With regard to the ratification of the Optional Protocols to the Convention against Torture and CRC, the delegation noted that these ratifications are already stipulated in 2008 and 2009 by the national plan.” (Human Rights Council 14.05.2008: p. 15)

2nd Review by the UN Committee against Torture

Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture

Reference: United Nations, Committee Against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 19 of the convention, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Indonesia , CAT/C/IDN/CO/2 (02 July 2008), available from http://undocs.org/CAT/C/IDN/CO/2.

"Disproportionate use of force and wide spread torture during military operations

The Committee is also deeply concerned about numerous, ongoing credible and consistent allegations, corroborated by the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other sources, of the routine and disproportionate use of force and widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment by members of the security and police forces, including by members of the armed forces, mobile police units (“Brimob”) and paramilitary groups during military and “sweep” operations, especially in Papua, Aceh and in other provinces where there have been armed conflicts (arts. 2, 10 and 11).

The State party should take all necessary measures promptly to prevent security andpolice forces from using disproportionate force and/or torture during military operations, especially against children.

The State party should implement effective measures promptly to ensure that all persons are afforded all fundamental legal safeguards during their detention. These include, in particular, training programmes for all military personnel on the absolute prohibition of torture. The State party should also ensure that all persons detained during military operations are always registered."(Committee Against Torture 02.07.2008, p.3 f)

"Impunity

The Committee is deeply concerned that credible allegations of torture and/or ill-treatment committed by law enforcement, military and intelligence services personnel are seldom investigated and prosecuted and that perpetrators are either rarely convicted or sentenced to lenient penalties that are not in accordance with the grave nature of their crimes. The Committee reiterates its grave concerns over the climate of impunity for perpetrators of acts of torture, including military, police and other State officials, particularly those holding senior positions who are alleged to have planned, commanded or perpetrated acts of torture. It notes with regret that no State official alleged to have perpetrated torture has been found guilty, as confirmed by the Special Rapporteur on torture (arts. 2 and 12).

The State party should ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are investigated promptly, effectively and impartially, and that the perpetrators are prosecuted and convicted in accordance with the gravity of the acts, as required by the Convention.

In view of the State party’s reaffirmed commitment at the universal periodic review to combat impunity (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/4, para. 76.4), State officials should publicly announce a zero-tolerance policy for perpetrators of acts of torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and support prosecution." (Committee Against Torture 02.07.2008, p. 4)

"Human rights courts and ad hoc human rights courts
 
The Committee is troubled that human rights courts, including ad hoc ones, which are designed to deal “specifically with gross violations of human rights”, including torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, pursuant to Law No. 26/2000, were not able to secure the conviction of any of the alleged perpetrators of gross human rights violations in relation to the Tanjung Priok (1984), East Timor (1999) and Abepura (2000) cases, especially now that the Supreme Court has acquitted Enrico Guterres (arts. 2, 6 and 12).

The State party should consider amending its legislation on human rights courts, since they face serious difficulties in carrying out their judicial mandate, which has lead to de facto impunity for perpetrators of gross human rights violations." (Committee Against Torture 02.07.2008, p. 9 f)

"Lack of effective investigation and prosecution by the Attorney-General

The Committee is concerned by the absence of prompt, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment by the Attorney-General’s office, including with regard to cases presented by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), such as in the Wasior, Wamena (1997/1998) enforced disappearances or Trisakti, Semanggi I and Semanggi II cases (art. 12).

The State party should reform the Attorney-General’s office to ensure that it proceeds with criminal prosecution into allegations of torture and ill-treatment with independence and impartiality. In addition, the State party should establish an effective and independent oversight mechanism to ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigation into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The State party should also publish, without delay, the reports of Komnas HAM investigations."  (Committee Against Torture 02.07.2008, p. 10)

 

List of issues prior to the submission of the third periodic report

Reference: United Nations, Committee Against Torture, List of issues to be considered during the examination of the second periodic report of INDONESIA (CAT/C/72/Add.1), CAT/C/IDN/Q/2, (26 February 2008), available from http://undocs.org/CAT/C/IDN/Q/2.

 "Article 1

1. According to information before the Committee, Indonesia has not yet amended its penal legislation in order to conform fully its definition of torture with the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention as the definition of torture of article 1 section 4 of Law 39/1999 on Human Right is not applicable to criminal offences other than “gross violations of human rights” (CAT/C/72/Add.1, para. 73), which is the sole competence of the Human Rights Court (article 104 of Law 39/1999). Please clarify whether perpetrators of individual acts of torture which have not been classified as “gross violations of human rights” have been prosecuted under this definition and this legislation.

(a) If so, please give examples of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied by the Courts of General Jurisdiction as well as by the other courts of the Indonesian penal system. How many accused and convicted persons have been public authorities, including members of TNI or Police, and how many are “individuals” as cited in paragraph 21 of the State party report (CAT/C/72/Add.1).

(b) If persons have not been prosecuted under this definition, please provide the definition and legislative act under which perpetrators of acts of torture have been prosecuted and convicted and what were the penalties applied. Please indicate whether there has been any progress, or any timetable for adoption, of the draft Penal Code (CAT/C/72/Add.1, para. 22).

2. Please also provide detailed information on all cases of torture investigated and prosecuted by the Human Rights Courts under Law 26/2000 as well as number of indictments and convictions, and indicate the penalties applied to the convicted perpetrators. Please provide the legal or jurisprudential definition of “gross violations of human rights” (articles 1 (2) and 7 of the Law) as applied by the Courts and provide examples of the trials mentioned in paragraph 107 of the report (CAT/C/72/Add.1), including the sentences and penalties." (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 1)

"Article 2

3. How are the basic legal safeguards for detained persons (access to lawyer and doctor and right to inform a relative) implemented in the State Party from the outset of their detention? What legal provisions, if any, establish those guarantees? According to information before the Committee, the police may detain suspects without warrant and for a period up to 20 days (even more in some cases) without presenting them before a judge. Please provide detailed information on the de facto practice of detention of suspects by the police and Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), including numbers and length of detention. Are persons detained by the police and TNI systematically registered and is there a central registry of detainees?" (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 2)

"4. Please provide detailed information on all cases of torture prosecuted by the Military Courts applying the Military Penal Code as well as number of indictments and convictions, and indicate the sentences and penalties applied to the convicted perpetrators. Under article 9 section (a) of Law 31/1997, Military Courts have the jurisdiction to prosecute military personnel regarding any acts, including crimes of a non military nature. Please report on plans to modify such provision, bringing the law in compliance with the State party’s international obligations. Please explain on what specific charges the military personnel mentioned in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the State party report (CAT/C/72/Add.1) were prosecuted and what were the penalties for such acts.

5. According to documentation before the Committee, torture is widely used by police forces and military forces, especially in Papua and Aceh provinces, reportedly against many detainees. Sources claim that a climate of persistent impunity for the security forces exists, especially in those provinces, where most cases reportedly have not been investigated or the perpetrators have not been prosecuted or convicted, or where the alleged cases of torture adjudicated have been prosecuted as disciplinary or ordinary criminal cases and resulted in lenient sentences. Please provide information on the steps taken to establish an effective, reliable and independent complaint system to undertake prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture by police and other officials and, where the findings so warrant, to prosecute and punish perpetrators, including senior officials, as recommended by the Committee (A/57/44,para. 45 (b)).

6.According to the State Party report (CAT/C/72/Add.1, para 8), since 2000, the Police have been separated from the Armed Forces. In principle, this would permit not only police independence from the military, but also accountability before the courts. However, the Criminal Procedure Code was also reportedly amended to prohibit prosecution of any criminal case not already subject to an official police investigation or inquiry, including cases against police officers. As a result, it is alleged that police are able to stall or end investigative or disciplinary cases against their officers. Please provide information on cases in which police been brought before non-military courts and found responsible for torture or ill-treatment." (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 2)

"Similarly, the Committee understands that those convicted in the 2000 Apebura case were given administrative punishments. Please clarify how these comport with the obligations under the Convention. What happened after the convicted persons completed their punishment? Were they permitted to return to their posts or transferred elsewhere?" (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 5)

"Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9

20. When Indonesia refuses to extradite to another country a person suspected of acts of torture, will a criminal case be opened in Indonesia? Have there been any such cases in the practice? The State party cites, in paragraphs 50 and 51 of its report (CAT/C/72/Add.1), the “Tanjung Priok” and the “Abepura” cases. Please provide detailed information on the exact prosecution charges and the penalties applied in those cases and how they conform to the principle aut dedere aut judiciare." (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 5)

"Article 11

24. Please provide information regarding the interrogation rules, instructions and methods currently existing in Indonesia. Please explain the mechanisms in place for the inspection of prisons, police station and other places of detention. Has an independent authority been established, as recommended by the Committee in its concluding observations on the State party’s initial report (A/57/44, para. 45 (b)), to receive complaints from inmates in prisons and what is the procedure to deal with such complaints. Is any non-government organization able to conduct periodic visits to places of deprivation of liberty? Has Komnas Ham or another governmental organization been provided with the authority to conduct such visits and take appropriate follow up action?

Article 12

25. While noting the inquiries mention in paragraphs 72 to 81 and paragraph 127 of the State party report (CAT/C/72/Add.1), the Committee understands that the National Committee on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) has encountered difficulties in the discharge of its mandate. Please provide statistical data on its activities, especially complaints received related to the Convention, inquiries completed and their outcome, and whether they were discontinued or handed over to the Attorney General for further investigation and prosecution. How does Komnas HAM challenge a decision by the Attorney General not to publish its report or prosecute a case? How has the Government followed up in response to the findings of Komnas Ham in the cases of Trisakti, and Semanggi I and II? Please provide information on the outcome of the cases mentioned in the report: (a) violence against students of the Universitas Muslim Indonesia in Makassar, (b) killings in Wasior in 2001- 2002, and (c) in Wamena in 2003 in Papua province. What measures have been taken to reinforce the independence of this institution, in line with the Paris Principles, as recommended by the Committee in its previous concluding observations (A/57/44, para. 45 (d))? What other measures have been implemented to ensure its objectivity, effectiveness and public accountability? Can Komnas Ham recommend compensation, and can it take cases to court, if Attorney General does not prosecute them?

26. What has been the result of the complaints against the Brimob police in the Abepura case of 2006, in which 24 people were allegedly tortured in connection with a protest that resulted in killing four police officers and an intelligence officer? Was an investigation ever undertaken into the actions of the police officers alleged to have been involved in the torture of the 24 people? What has been the result?" (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 6)

"27. According to the State report (CAT/C/72/Add.1, paras 76 and 92), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established by Law No. 27/2004, has the mandate to investigate gross human rights violations and to compensate victims. Please provide information, including statistical data, on its activities, especially how many investigations have been completed, and their outcome, as well as on any compensation, restitution or rehabilitation granted to victims." (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 7)

"37. According to information before the Committee, human rights defenders conducting peaceful and legitimate activities of advocacy, monitoring and/or reporting human rights violations have been harassed as well as prevented by the police, military and intelligence agencies from exercising their freedom to assemble, demonstrate or associate freely as well as their freedom of movement. What measures has Indonesia taken to protect and prevent such harassment and violations specifically in accord with the recommendations of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights defenders (A/HRC/7/28/add.2, para. 90)? What measures recommended by the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights defenders have been implemented? What mechanisms are in place, and have been used, to investigate those acts from public entities? Please provide data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and conviction related to such acts. Detailed information on the latest stage of the investigation and prosecution of the murder of Munir Said Thalib should also be provided. Additionally, please provide information on the attacks on human rights defenders from west Papua including the chairperson of the Papuan representation office of Komnas Ham, Albert Rumbekwan on 24 September 2007, following the visit of the Special Representative on Human rights Defenders in June 2007. What is the status of any investigation or prosecution in connection with it?" (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 9)

" 39. According to the special representative on internally displaced persons (see E/CN.4/2002/95/Add.2), the police and military forces have often used excessive and disproportionate force against ethnic and religious groups or persons, in particular in Aceh, Papua, the Malukus and West Timor provinces. Please provide information on the specific measures taken to combat and prevent such actions by TNI and the police forces on the ground, including training and education programmes. Please explain whether and how such allegations are investigated and prosecuted, and by which authorities. Are suspects routinely suspended from their duties during investigations? Please provide any concrete examples of such cases." (Committee Against Torture 26.02.2008, p. 9)

 

2007

 1st to 3rd Review  by the UN Committee for the Eradication of Racial Discrimination

 Concluding Observations of CERD Committee

Reference: United Nations, Committee for the Eraditaion of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations, A/62/18 (1 October 2007), available here

"357.The Committee notes that the State party recognizes the existence of indigenous peoples on its territory, while using several terms to designate them. It is concerned, however, that under domestic law these peoples are recognized “as long as they remain in existence”, without appropriate safeguards guaranteeing respect for the fundamental principle of self-identification in the determination of indigenous peoples (arts. 2 and 5).

The Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendation No. 8 (1990), and recommends the State party to respect the way in which indigenous peoples perceive and define themselves. It encourages the State party to take into consideration the definitions of indigenous and tribal peoples as set out in ILO Convention No.169 of 1989 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and to envisage ratifying that instrument.

358.The Committee welcomes the acknowledgement by the State party that it is a multi ethnic, multicultural, multireligious, and multilingual country, as well as its commitment to achieve “unity in diversity” and respect of human rights for all on an equal basis. The Committee is concerned, however, that in practice the rights of indigenous peoples have been compromised, due to the interpretations adopted by the State party of national interest, modernization and economic and social development (arts. 2 and 5).

The State party should amend its domestic laws, regulations and practices to ensure that the concepts of national interest, modernization and economic and social development are defined in a participatory way, encompass world views and interests of all groups living on its territory, and are not used as a justification to override the rights of indigenous peoples, in accordance with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 23 (1997) on indigenous peoples.

The State party should recognize and respect indigenous culture, history, language and way of life as an enrichment of the State’s cultural identity and provide indigenous peoples with conditions allowing for a sustainable economic andsocial development compatible with their cultural characteristics." (Committee against Racial Descrimination, 01.10.2007, p.35)

"The Committee, while noting that land, water and natural resources shall be controlled by the State party and exploited for the greatest benefit of the people under Indonesian law, recalls that such a principle must be exercised consistently with the rights of indigenous peoples. The State party should review its laws, in particular Law No. 18 of 2004 on Plantations, as well as the way they are interpreted and implemented in practice, to ensure that they respect the rights of indigenous peoples to possess, develop, control and use their communal lands. While noting that the Kalimantan Border Oil Palm Mega-project is being subjected to further studies, the Committee recommends that the State party secure the possession and ownership rights of local communities before proceeding further with this plan. The State party should also ensure that meaningful consultations are undertaken with the concerned communities, with a view to obtaining their consent and participation in it.

360.The Committee notes with concern that although it has been abolished, the transmigration programme has long-standing effects, as exemplified by the conflict that took place between the Dayak and the Madura ethnic groups in Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan. The Committee also notes with concern the challenges faced by the State party due to the increase in the number of internally displaced persons, resulting not only from natural disasters but also from conflicts, and the cultural misunderstandings that have arisen between communities (arts. 2 and 5).

The Committee strongly recommends that the State party increase its efforts to prevent the resurgence of ethnic conflicts on its territory. It should assess the adverse impact of the transmigration programme, in particular on the rights of local communities, and promote mtual understanding between communities, as well as mutual knowledge and respect for their histories, traditions and languages. It should ensure that violent acts are duly investigated, prosecuted and sentenced. The Committee also encourages the State party to prepare a set of guiding principles for internally displaced persons with the aim of preventing racial discrimination, as envisaged by the State party. It suggests in this regard that the State party take into consideration the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2)." (Committee against Racial Descrimination, 01.10.2007, p.36)

"364.The Committee welcomes efforts made towards the decentralization of power and consolidation of regional autonomy. It regrets, however, that it has not received sufficient information on the status of implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law No. 21 of 2001, and expresses concern about information according to which Papuans continue to experience great poverty (arts. 2 and 5).

The Committee recommends that the State party provide information on the implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law No. 21 of 2001, as well as on measures adopted to ensure the enjoyment by Papuans of their human rights without any discrimination." (Committee against Racial Descrimination, 01.10.2007, p.36)

 

Combined 4th and 5th Review by the UN Committee for the Eradication of Discrimination against Women

Concluding Comments of the Committee against Discrimination of Women

Reference: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Indonesia, CEDAW/C/IDN/CO/05 (15 August 2007), available here

"30. The Committee is concerned about limits and obstacles to access for girls and young women to education at all levels, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels. It is also concerned about obstacles in access to education for girls who live in rural or remote areas. The Committee is further concerned about the low representation of girls and women in non-traditional academic and professional fields, in particular science and technology, and in decision-making positions in the education sector, such as school principals. The Committee is also concerned that there is insufficient awareness among teachers and children of the Convention, human rights, women’s rights and children’s rights in general.

31. The Committee urges the State party to ensure equal opportunities for girls and women in education at all levels and to take measures to ensure that women and girls in rural and remote areas are equally able to receive a quality education. The Committee encourages the State party to develop measures aimed at the diversification of women’s academic and professional choices, including in non-traditional fields, and to closely monitor the career development of women to the highest levels of the educational system in order to ensure equal access of women and men and prevent and eliminate hidden or indirect discrimination faced by women. It also requests the State party to enhance the training of teaching staff in regard to gender equality issues. It urges the State party to disseminate information on the Convention in programmes in the educational system, including human rights education and gender training, and to provide parenting education on these issues, with a view to enhancing gender-sensitive socialization and child-rearing processes." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 15.08.2007, p. 7)

"36. While the Committee welcomes the reintroduction of the “Mother Friendly Movement” to combat maternal mortality, it is concerned about the high rates of maternal and infant mortality in Indonesia. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of family planning education and the difficulty in accessing contraceptives, which result in a high rate of abortions and teenage pregnancies. While the Committee also appreciates the efforts of the State party to revise the Population Law to ensure that birth certificates are available to the poor, the Committee is concerned that a lack of information, bureaucratic obstacles and financial barriers may prevent poor and rural women from obtaining birth certificates and registering births and notes that the inability to access such services has been linked to the medicalization of female genital mutilation and to trafficking in females.

37. The Committee urges the State party to continue its efforts to ensure that women have equal access to appropriate and adequate health services, including in rural areas, that obstetric and maternal health needs are adequately addressed and that maternal mortality rates are reduced. It invites the State party to make full use of the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health. The Committee also recommends that measures be taken to guarantee effective access of women and girls to information and services regarding sexual and reproductive health and contraception in order to reduce the rate of unsafe abortions and teenage pregnancy. The Committee also urges the State party to take legislative and practical steps to ensure that births can easily be registered and birth certificates obtained free of charge. It also recommends that the State party implement public awareness-raising campaigns and take concrete measures to ensure that poor and rural women are aware of the requirements relating to birth registrations and certificates and are able to fully access the birth certificate and registration services provided by the Government. The Committee requests that the State party provide information on the impact of measures taken by the Government in these areas in its next report." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 15.08.2007, p. 8f)

"38. The Committee is concerned that widespread poverty among women and poor socio-economic conditions are among the causes of the violation of women’s human rights and discrimination against women. The Committee is especially concerned about the situation of rural women, including their lack of access to legal protection, health care and education. [...]

39. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that the promotion of gender equality and sensitization to gender equality issues is an explicit component of, and is fully implemented in, its national development plans and policies, in particular those aimed at poverty alleviation, sustainable development and natural disaster management. It urges the State party to pay special attention to the needs of rural women, ensuring that they participate in decision-making processes and have full access to legal aid, education, health services and credit facilities. The Committee also urges the State party to take appropriate measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women with respect to access to housing and food aid in emergency and natural disaster situations and to ensure that women in these situations are adequately protected from violence." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 15.08.2007, p. 9)

 

Report of the special representative on human rights defenders on her Mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms. Hina Jilani, Addendum, Mission to Indonesia, A/HRC/7/28/Add.2 (28 January 2008), available from http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/7/28/Add.2&Lang=E

"Finally, she assesses the situation of human rights defenders in the West Papua and Aceh provinces. She concludes that a climate of fear undeniably prevails in West Papua, especially for defenders engaged with the rights of the Papuan communities to participation in governance, control over natural resources and demilitarization of the province. The situation of these defenders does not seem to have eased and, despite the adoption of the Special Autonomy Law in 2001, their legitimate activities for the protection of human rights continue to be targeted. The series of concerns of the Special Representative regarding the situation of human rights defenders in West Papua, articulated in this report, persist despite the assurances given to her by the police and military authorities in Papua that there was no institutional policy to target defenders." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p.2 f)

"4. In addition to Jakarta, the Special Representative visited the Aceh and West Papua provinces, where she had an opportunity to meet with local authorities, members of provincial legislatures and the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies. She also met with a broad cross-section of civil society and with human rights defenders engaged with a wide range of human rights issues." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 6)

"31. Concerns were conveyed to the Special Representative that the office of the Attorney-General impedes and fails to accommodate cases of human rights violations. The Special Representative was told that for the last three years in West Papua, no case of gross human rights violations has been transmitted by the Attorney-General to the Prosecutor. According to a judge of an ad hoc human rights court, not everybody in the judiciary knows exactly what a case of gross human rights violations is. Furthermore, it was reported that cases of disappearances are categorized as past abuses by the office of the Attorney-General. The Special Representative stresses that disappearances are ongoing violations until resolved and should be dealt with accordingly.

32. The establishment of ad hoc human rights jurisdiction of these courts is limited to gross violations amounting to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no mechanism to deal with other serious violations. The existing system, therefore, does not effectively eliminate impunity for human rights violations. There are also concerns that lack of credible and effective procedures for witness protection as well as gathering of evidence has marred the functioning of these courts. A lack of political will may also impede the work of the courts. For instance, if the People’s Legislative Assembly determines that a case does not deal with a gross human rights violation, then the Court is not competent to judge the case. " (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 13 f)

"4. Local human rights committees

40. The Special Representative welcomes the establishment of local human rights committees under the National Plan of Action but regrets that she was not given an opportunity to meet some  of these bodies during her trips to Aceh and West Papua. Furthermore, she raises concern regarding the visibility of such committees among civil society since she was not apprised of their existence during her meetings with human rights organizations." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 15)

"47. It is, however, regrettable that despite visible progress in the country’s democratic development, human rights defenders continue to experience serious constraints in conducting their activities for the protection of human rights. The Special Representative is deeply concerned by the testimonies she has heard in the capital and the Aceh and West Papua provinces indicating the continuing activities of the police, the military and other security and intelligence agencies as well as religious fundamentalist groups that are aimed at harassing and intimidating defenders or restricting their access to victims and to sites of human rights violations." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 16)

"48. Violations suffered by human rights defenders range from extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution, enforced disappearance, torture and ill-treatment, to arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedoms of expression, assembly, association and movement. The Special Representative voices special concern at the trend of stigmatization of human rights defenders, and takes note of alleged comments made by the Head of State Intelligence Agency who labelled as radical the following NGOs: Imparsial, Kontras and Elsham. These organizations were reportedly accused of receiving foreign aid and assisting separatist movements. Such statements must be strictly discouraged. This trend is exacerbated in the West Papua province.

49. Human rights defenders promoting or protecting civil and political rights are the prime victims of intimidations and harassment. However, defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights are also targeted. The Special Representative gathered a number of cases of abuses pertaining to corruption within the State apparatus, rights of national and migrant workers, rights of indigenous peoples over natural resources, and land rights of farmers. " (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 17)

"1. Defending the rights of women

55. In the course of her visit, the Special Representative had an opportunity to meet with several women human rights defenders, in the capital and in the provinces of Aceh and West Papua. She was impressed by their courage and tireless commitment in promoting and defending human rights. These women are human rights activists, humanitarian workers, counsellors of women victims of violence, social workers, and community organizers." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 18) 

"3. Defending the rights of indigenous peoples

61. Activists engaged in defending the rights of indigenous peoples are at particular risk, especially in West Papua. The Special Representative was informed of cases where indigenous peoples had been arrested when raising publicly the issue of their cultural flag or threatened when struggling for the preservation of their natural habitat. One defender received death threats and blackmails as a result of her advocacy work on the rights of indigenous peoples over natural resources. She reported the threats to the police, but the case was reportedly not taken up. The threats continued and she was forced to leave her place with her entire family." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 19)

"4. Church workers

62. The Special Representative was distressed by the plight of church workers in West Papua who have repeatedly voiced concerns regarding human rights violations suffered by the local population and have as a result been publicly accused of being linked to the separatist Papua Free Movement (OPM). She gathered several cases of church workers who had been hysically assaulted, threatened or had their homes searched by the military and the police. The situation of religious defenders is relatively safe in Jayapura; however, in remote and isolated areas of the province, serious violations occur.

C.  Situation of human rights defenders in West Papua and Aceh provinces

63. Since the establishment of her mandate to 1 December 2006, the Special Representative has sent 35 communications to the Government on 99 individual defenders and several other activists of human rights and humanitarian non-governmental organizations. Fifteen cases relate to the situation of women human rights defenders or activities related to the promotion and protection of the human rights of women. With the exception of a few cases on human rights violations in Papua, virtually all the communications transmitted by the Special Representative relate to alleged killing, disappearance, attacks, arrest, detention (often incommunicado), intimidation and harassment of defenders in Aceh. In many cases, the police or the military were reportedly involved or failed to protect defenders from attacks by non-State entities. The Special Representative has also sent jointly with other mandate holders communications on general allegations related to massive human rights violations in Aceh. While acknowledging the response of the Government to a few communications, the Special Representative regrets the absence of replies to most of the communications.

1. Climate of fear in West Papua

64. The Special Representative visited Jayapura, capital of the West Papua province, on 8 and 9 June 2007. She had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Province, officials from related provincial government offices, the Provincial Prosecutor, the Provincial Chief of Police, the Provincial Chief of Military Command, members of the People’s Representative Council of Papua, representatives of MRP (Papua People’s Council), religious leaders belonging to the Consultative Forum of Religious Leaders of Papua, members of Komnas HAM-Papua, and individual human rights activists.

65. A climate of fear undeniably prevails in West Papua, especially for defenders engaged with the rights of the Papuan communities to participation in governance, control over natural resources and demilitarization of the province. The situation of these defenders does not seem to have eased, and despite the adoption of the Special Autonomy Law in 2001, their legitimate activities for the protection of human rights continue to be targeted. The Special Representative heard credible reports of incidents involving arbitrary detention, torture, and harassment through surveillance. She was also informed of cases where human rights defenders had been threatened with prosecution by members of the police and the military. It was alleged that when defenders had attempted to register their complaints, that had been denied and they had been threatened. Instances of excessive and disproportionate use of force when policing peaceful demonstrations were also brought to her attention." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 20)

"66. The Special Representative is particularly disturbed by allegations that when defenders expose abuse of authority or other forms of human rights violations committed by the security apparatus, they are labelled as separatists in order to undermine their credibility. The Special Representative believes that this trend places human rights defenders at greater risk and must be discouraged by the concerned authorities.

67. The Special Representative is also concerned about complaints that defenders from West Papua working for the preservation of the environment and the right over land and natural resources (deforestation and illegal logging) frequently receive threats from private actors with powerful economic interests but are granted no protection by the police. Some old and recent cases concern direct involvement of the police and military. Complaints were made to the police, but no action was reportedly taken. Sometimes, the police did not even make the effort to examine the facts. The Special Representative reminds the Government that it has a responsibility to protect its citizens against the harmful activities of non-State actors.

68. This climate of fear has reportedly worsened since the incident of Abepura in March 2006, where five members of the security forces were killed after clashes with protesters demanding the closure of the gold and copper mine, PT Freeport. Lawyers and human rights defenders involved with the trial received death threats. The harassment of these lawyers and defenders around the trial was interpreted as a warning to the community of human rights defenders, who have decreased their activities out of fear of harsh treatment.
 
69. Interference with freedom of movement and with defenders’ efforts to monitor and investigate human rights violations was also reported. The Special Representative was perturbed to hear that Komnas HAM is prevented by law enforcement authorities from carrying out its official duties. She was particularly disconcerted by reports that Mr. Albert Rumbekwan, Director of the branch of Komnas HAM in West Papua, was intimidated and threatened on several occasions by the police and unidentified persons in the course of his fact-finding activities. For instance, in March 2006, following the Abepura incident, Komnas HAM tried to conduct an investigation into the incident but the Chief of the local police reportedly warned Mr. Rumbekwan and his colleagues that “if they continue the investigation, the police will kill them”. Mr. Rumbekwan tried to explain the mandate of Komnas HAM to the officer, but this latter threw away the documents Mr. Rumbekwan was handing to him. Mr. Rumbekwan reported all the cases to Komnas HAM in Jakarta, but according to him, no assistance was provided.
 
70. The Special Representative was disturbed by reports that international human rights monitors and journalists entering West Papua are subject to tight restrictions and only a few are permitted to operate, resulting in a scarcity of information on the human rights situation in West Papua, mostly with regard to allegations of human rights abuses occurring in remote areas. It is worth noting that, despite guarantees given by the capital to allow visits to West Papua, local authorities often deny access.

71. The concerns of the Special Representative regarding the situation of human rights defenders in West Papua persist, despite the assurance to her by the Military Commander and the Chief of Police in Papua that there was no institutional policy to target defenders. According to various credible sources, an increase of military presence has been witnessed on the island, despite an official statement alleging the opposite." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 21)

"72. According to reliable sources, a number of human rights defenders with whom the Special Representative met during her visit in West Papua were threatened and intimidated during and after the end of the mission. On 8 June, shortly after the arrival of the Special Representative in Jayapura, the vehicle in which Ms. Frederika Korain and Rev. Perinus Kogoya, and Mr. Barthol Yomen, members of the Peace and Justice Commission for the Diocese of Jayapura (SKP Jayapura), were driving was hit by a car driven by intelligence officers. The Special Representative sent a communication about this incident on 11 July 2007. The Government however responded that “this incident was evidently a misunderstanding that led to no injuries of those involved. However, the perpetrators fled the scene with only a weak excuse to exonerate culpability, but apparently not before one of them had given his name and his telephone number”.The Government later gave a detailed account of the incident, concluding that “the exact details of the incident [had] been changed and the events dramatized to politicize them”.

73. On 9 June 2007, Mr. Yan Christian Warinussy, Director of LP3BH (Lembaga Penelitian, Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Bantuan Hukum or Institute of Research, Analysis and Development of Legal Aid) of Manokwari, was subjected to suveillance, and on 29 July he received threatening text messages on his mobile phone linking his human rights work to the separatist movement. The Special Representative alerted the Government about this situation in two communications sent on 11 July and 28 August 2007. The Government replied that “nothing malefic came of this incident and investigations thereafter have not thus far been able to establish either a clear description or the whereabouts of the alleged perpetrators”.

74. The most worrying case is that of Mr. Albert Rumbekwan, who on 11 June 2007 received death threats on his mobile reportedly stating: “You who are reporting about the human rights situation in Papua are trying to destroy the people. You want evidence of people being killed, I will kill your tribe, your family and your children will become only bones to show that there is only a zone of peace in Papua”. The Special Representative expressed her grave concern in two  communications addressed to the Government on 11 July and 10 August 2007. The Government responded that “[w]hile it is most unfortunate that these incidents should occur during the official visit of the Special Representative [...], it must be stressed that such incidents are not the norm ... over the years, [Mr. Rumbekwan] has undertaken an increasingly high profile role as a campaigner for peace, justice and human rights in his region of West Papua ... [t]his is something he continues to do to date as head of Komnas HAM in Papua and it should be noted that he has in fact received police protection and escort since he reported he was being harassed”. While the Special Representative welcomes the granting of police protection following these threats, she remains concerned at reports that threats against Mr. Rumbekwan and his family persist, indicating that the measures taken by the police are ineffective and should be reinforced." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 22)

"B. Recommendations

[...]

90. The Special Representative recommends that legislation and procedures be instituted to prevent the prosecution of human rights defenders aimed at their harassment for conducting activities that are legitimately a part of their function for the defence of human rights. For this purpose, it is important also to sensitize judicial and prosecutorial officials as well as the police so that human rights activities are not criminalized.

91. The Special Representative notes that several cases of gross human rights violations brought before the Supreme Court ended up in acquittals. Prospects for successful prosecution of gross human rights violations would be greatly strengthened if guidelines and standards are laid down by the Supreme Court for effective investigation, with directions that compel investigation and prosecution agencies to ensure that cases are based on investigations conducted under those guidelines.

92. The Special Representative particularly recommends that better system of coordination and support be created within Komnas HAM in order to ensure that regional representatives are able to operate effectively. They must receive full and timely support of the Commission if there is interference in their functioning or they are at risk in their regions.

93. The Special Representative notes that there are no standard operating procedures that ensure interaction with civil society in the work of Komnas HAM. By involving civil society and using its expertise in inquiries, national human rights institutions would endorse the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders and contribute to recognition of their role.

[...]

96. The Special Representative urges the Ministry for Law and Human Rights to give more visibility to local human rights committees and to allow interaction with human rights defenders whose voices should be heard before these committees.

97. As regards law enforcement authorities, there is an acute need to train military and police officers specifically on the content of the Declaration of Human Rights Defenders. Heads of military and police may consider issuing clear instructions to prevent future cases of violations against human rights defenders and instructing commanders in the field not to make irresponsible comments about defenders which discredit their activities and put them at risk of reprisals." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 25)

98. The Special Representative calls on the military to create special complaint cells for registering and redressing incidents of harm or threats to human rights defenders. She particularly welcomes the commitment made by the Chiefs of Military in West Papua and Aceh to establish such a mechanism.

99. In the context of the Special Representative’s concern regarding surveillance activities against defenders carried out by intelligence personnel, she observes that in Aceh, many military officers are not aware that under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, surveillance of civilian activities is no longer within their sphere of authority. A similar trend was reported in West Papua, where the military is heavily engaged in surveillance activities. Democratic oversight of intelligence under laws and regulations fully respectful of human rights standards may protect human rights defenders against any abuse of law and authority. The Special Representative is concerned that the draft Intelligence Act may not sufficiently address the lack of accountability of intelligence services in order to ensure prevention of abuse. She therefore urges a review of the draft law to ensure its efficacy in this regard.

100. The Special Representative also urges the Government to review administrative procedures in order to remove restrictive regulations that impede the right of defenders to freedom of assembly and of association." (Human Rights Council, 28.01.2008, p. 26)

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture on his Mission to Indonesia

Reference: United NAtions, Human Rights COuncil, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Addendum Mission to Indonesia, A/HRC/7/3/Add.7 (10 March 2018), available from http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/7/3/Add.7&Lang=E


"5. He visited prisons, police posts, military detention facilities and a social care centre in Jakarta, Central Java, Papua, Sulawesi and Bali

6. [...] As with any anti-torture monitoring mechanism, the Special Rapporteur’s fact-finding is fully effective only if he enjoys unrestricted freedom of inquiry, including by conducting visits to places of detention without prior announcement and interviewing detainees in private. In this context, the Special Rapporteur regrets that the efforts of Government officials to monitor his movements throughout the country restricted his ability to carry out unannounced visits to places of detention. He further regrets that in a small number of instances (Police Headquarters Jakarta, Poltabes Yogyakarta, Military Prison Abepura), his unimpeded access to places of detention was compromised, including his ability to carry out private interviews with detainees, in contravention of his terms of reference. While overall access was by and large granted, such interferences carry the risk of distorting an objective assessment of the day-to-day practices in places of detention." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 7 f)

"19. The Special Rapporteur found allegations and evidence of several cases of beatings by guards, often in relation to attempts to escape and violations of prison rules. In several prisons, such as Makassar, Pondok Bambu (Jakarta), the beatings appeared to take place publicly, in front of other detainees. Furthermore, allegations of beatings were voiced in the prisons of Wamena and Abepura (both Papua) as well as Cipinang (Jakarta) and Yogyakarta." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 11)

"Police custody

20. Contrasting with the situation in prisons, the Special Rapporteur received a considerable number of allegations of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by the police, either during arrest or in custody. Reflecting the general heterogeneity of the country, abuses by the police appear to be more common in the densely populated cities, which are also plagued by urban crime and drug-related offences, rather than in the remote and rural areas. In light of the information received in private interviews with individuals who were or/and had been in police custody, the corroborating results of independent forensic medical examinations of injuries, he concludes that torture is routine practice in Jakarta and other metropolitan areas of Java, including Yogyakarta. The Special Rapporteur sees this assessment furthermore underpinned by the palpable level of fear among detainees, which, in those places resulted in reluctance to talk to him. At some police stations, e.g. in Poltabes Yogyakarta, Polres Wamena and Polres Jakarta East, severe beatings were ongoing as the Special Rapporteur conducted his visit.  

21. The types of abuse reported to the Special Rapporteur and corroborated by forensic medical analysis include beatings with fists, rattan or wooden sticks, chains, cables, iron bars and hammers, kicking with heavy boots, electrocution and shots into the legs. Some detainees alleged that heavy implements (chairs, desks, and car jacks) had been placed on their legs for a prolonged period of time. The injuries sustained in a vast number of cases remain without any treatment, putting the health of the detainee further at risk." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 12)

"28. In Cipinang prison, conditions in overcrowded punishment cells amounted to inhuman treatment (see appendix). The Special Rapporteur found that detention facilities and prisons have “orientation programmes” in which newly arrived inmates are placed in conditions of “quarantine” - often for several days in small, dark and dirty cells, as observed in Wamena prison - that are clearly incompatible with international standards." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 13)

"33. The Special Rapporteur would like to note some good practices as well. Article 4 of Law 12/1995 on Corrections requires staff to respect the human rights of inmates. The penitentiary system is based on the idea of reintegration, which was reflected in the relative openness of detention places (i.e. in most places prisoners spent much of the daytime outside of their cells and could receive visits of relatives and friends several times a week); keeping contact with the outside world is a major component of successful rehabilitation and reintegration of detainees and also an important potential safeguard against ill-treatment. This openness was particularly apparent in prisons in Papua, including for those charged with political offences." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 14)

"35. The Special Rapporteur received several complaints about the quantity and quality of food. In many cases, detainees indicated that they received only one portion of very basic food for up to four persons. He was informed that some detainees, once they were transferred to the authority of the prosecutor, stopped receiving food altogether, even though they remained in police custody. The officer in charge at Polres Abepura admitted that if the prosecutor did not provide the funds for buying food for the detainees, they were not provided any." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 15)

"39. The Special Rapporteur has received consistent allegations about the use of excessive force by security forces. It is reported that in particular in Papua, mobile paramilitary police units (Brigade Mobil or Brimob) have routinely been engaging in largely indiscriminate village “sweeping” operations in search of alleged independence activists and their supporters, or raids on university boarding houses, using excessive force. Recently, allegations have been made about incidents in border areas, where the military is strengthening its presence. The Special Rapporteur considers that these consistent allegations from a number of credible sources,combined with the quasi-total impunity, are of serious concern. He notes that the heavy restrictions placed on travel within Papua restricts effective information flow, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 15 f)

"57. According to article 104 of the Law on Human Rights Courts, ad hoc courts can be established for gross human rights violations that occurred before the adoption of the law on 23 November 2000. Such courts were established in six cases so far, but only three of these cases were concluded (on East Timor, Tanjung Priok and Abepura) and not a single State official has been found guilty. For example, in the Abepura case  the National Human Rights Commission named 25 suspects; the Attorney General’s office charged two of them and the courts acquitted them despite of evidence that unlawful violence had been committed, justifying its decision by reference to Standard Operating Procedures." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 19)

"B.  Recommendations

72. In the spirit of cooperation and partnership, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government, with the assistance of the international community (i.e. the United Nations and other actors), take decisive steps to implement the following recommendations:

Impunity

73. Torture should be defined and criminalized as a matter of priority and as a concrete demonstration of Indonesia’s commitment to combat the problem, in accordance with articles 1 and 4 of the Convention against Torture, with penalties commensurate with the gravity of torture.

74. The declaration should be made with respect to article 22 of the Convention recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from individuals who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention.

75. The Government should ensure that corporal punishment, independently of the physical suffering it causes, is explicitly criminalized in all parts of the country.

76. Officials at the highest level should condemn torture and announce a zero-tolerance policy vis-à-vis any ill-treatment by State officials. The Government should adopt an anti-torture action plan which foresees awareness-raising programmes and training for all stakeholders, including the National Human Rights Commission and civil society representatives, in order to lead them to live up to their human rights obligations and fulfil their specific task in the fight against torture.

77. All allegations of torture and ill-treatment should be promptly and thoroughly investigated ex-officio by an independent authority with no connection to the authority investigating or prosecuting the case against the alleged victim.

Safeguards and prevention

78. As a matter of urgent priority, the period of police custody should be reduced to a time limit in line with international standards (maximum of 48 hours); after this period the detainees should be transferred to a pretrial facility under a different authority, where no further unsupervised contact with the interrogators or investigators should be permitted.

79. All detainees should be effectively guaranteed the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent court, e.g. through habeas corpus proceedings." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 25)

"80. Judges and prosecutors should routinely ask persons arriving from police custody how they have been treated, and if they suspect that they have been subjected to ill-treatment, order an independent medical examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the defendant.

81. The maintenance of custody registers should be scrupulously ensured.

82. Confessions made by persons in custody without the presence of a lawyer and which are not confirmed before a judge shall not be admissible as evidence against the persons who made the confession. Serious consideration should be given to video and audio taping of interrogations, including of all persons present.

83. Accessible and effective complaints mechanisms should be established. These should be accessible from all over the country and from all places of detention; complaints by detainees should be followed up by independent and thorough investigations, and complainants must be protected against any reprisals. The agencies in charge of conducting investigations, inter alia Probam, should receive targeted training.

84. The Government of Indonesia should expediently accede to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and establish a truly independent National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) to carry out unannounced visits to all places of detention.

85. The Government of Indonesia should support the National Commission on Human Rights and the National Commission on Violence against Women in their endeavours to become effective players in the fight against torture and provide them with the necessary resources and training to ensure their effective functioning.

Excessive violence

86. The Special Rapporteur recalls that excessive violence during military and police actions can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government of Indonesia should take all steps necessary to stop the use of excessive violence during police and military operations, above all in conflict areas such as Papua and Central Sulawesi.

Conditions of detention

87. The Government of Indonesia should continue efforts to improve detention conditions, in particular with a view to providing health care, treat rather than punish persons with mental disabilities, and improve the quantity and quality of food. The Government, in all detention contexts, should ensure the separation of minors from adults and of pretrial prisoners from convicts and train and deploy female personnel to women’s sections of prisons and custody facilities.

88. The Government of Indonesia should ensure that the criminal justice system is non-discriminatory at every stage, combat corruption, which disproportionately affects the poor, the vulnerable and minorities, and take effective measures against corruption by public officials responsible for the administration of justice, including judges, prosecutors, police and prison personnel." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 26 f)      

"ABEPURA PRISON (PAPUA)
(Visited on 15 November 2007)

24. The Special Rapporteur was received by Lieutenant Colonel Yarangga and by several journalists despite the fact that this was an unannounced visit. The prison has a capacity of 230 detainees. On the day of the visit 277 persons were being held at the prison, out of whom 10 were women (2 convicted and 8 pre-trial). 111 of the male detainees were convicted, 106 were in pre-trial detention. In addition, 50 detainees normally in the drug section, which was under renovation, were held there. Cells were open from 6 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. All male detainees, including minors, could intermingle in the courtyard during the day. There were two punishment cells where persons could be held for up to six days. Five prisoners were convicted of treason: Filep Karma, Yusak Pakage as well as Gustaf Ayomi, Jean Hesegem and Herry Ass, all three from Makassar. 

25. Nurses were present all day at the prison and a doctor visits every Friday. Two deaths in custody were reported in the last two years, one from TB (he was released just before) and one from an overdose. Five detainees are reportedly infected with HIV. 

26. The Director of the Prison informs the Special Rapporteur that in the beginning of November 2007, Dance Ibo, a detainee, told his family about beatings by an officer named Kris Wamuar. The family complained to the prison director, who questioned the officer. The latter admitted to the beatings and was suspended from his position, but is still serving elsewhere in the prison.
 
27. On 15 November 2007 it was reported to the director that a convict had beaten a pre-trial detainee.

28. According to the prisoners, there used to be regular beatings of new arrivals. However the current director stopped this practice. It was reported that a former prisoner from Papua New Guinea attempted to escape three months earlier. After his re-arrest he was so heavily beaten that his leg broke; he was not taken to a hospital. Many detainees and prisoners complained about the food, which consisted mainly of dry rice. In general, the Special Rapporteur was positively impressed by the liberal spirit in the prison." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 32)

"29. Gananathan Thusyantham, aged 35, a Dutch citizen born in Sri Lanka, was arrested on 10 March 2007 by security personnel in a bank in Jayapura, suspected of forgery, and held by the local police for 50 days in a small and over crowded cell with 25 detainees. The food was of bad quality so that he had to buy his own food. Also, it was very hot in the cell and there was not enough water. After 50 days he was taken to the High Court but no hearing took place. He was represented by a lawyer.

30. Filep Karma, a well-known political activist, was beaten with rattan sticks on his head during his arrest; then he was put in a truck and some police officers were standing on his back (main perpetrator: Vice Commander of the Police Robert Washington). He was interrogated day and night at the local police office in Abepura. Starting from 27 December 2004 he was in pre-trial detention at Abepura Prison. Overall, the prison conditions were acceptable but many officers used to get drunk and then beat up detainees. He often complained to the prison authorities about the treatment and ill-treatment of others and was therefore repeatedly beaten up by the guards Abraham Fingkrew and Kristomos Wamuar. 

31. Yusak Pakage, another well-known political activist, was arrested by the police at his house on 1 December 2004. In 2006 he reportedly received threats from the National Police in Jakarta. On 18 August 2006, the Mobile Police reportedly killed his family. On 1 July 2007, one of the guards, Abraham Fingkrew, broke the lock of his cell and took him to his office, together with Cosmos and Simpson. On 3 July 2007 he was taken to several police stations in Jayapura (city police, mobile brigade, and military police) in preparation of a transfer to another prison. Refusing the transfer, he went on hunger strike and the chief of police, on 5 July 2007, ordered his transfer back to Abepura Prison. Due to his weak health he asked for medical examinations outside the prison, but the request was turned down. On 19 July 2007 he was taken to the prosecutor’s office, where he was forced to sign a letter. He also reported that his brother was shot in the leg (see Polsek Abepura).

32. Selpius Bobii, from East Timor, was arrested by the city police of Abepura on 16 March 2006 by four officers. When he was thrown into a truck, he lost his glasses. Then he was taken to the police station. He was beaten with fists and boots until he fainted. On the next day he was taken to the provincial police, where he stayed for two weeks, during which the officers poured hot water on him, beat him with an iron bar, wooden and rattan sticks, and subjected him to electric shocks with a black electroshock device. 

33. Hendra Ruver, aged 27, was taken to Abepura Prison on 24 August 2004. He had asked permission from the officer to go outside the prison for one day to meet his family, but then stayed outside for one year and nine months because he was afraid to return to the prison. When he finally returned on 13 September 2007, he was severely beaten with fists and sticks by prison guards Hutabarat and Iriantopakombong. His parents complained to the director of the prison. He had already been beaten in September 2005 on his legs with iron sticks. 

34. Luis Tuti, aged 26, from Papua Sarwi, had been detained in the prison since January 2006. In January 2007 he escaped. In March 2007 he had a motorcycle accident and sustained a serious injury on his right food. In April 2007, Luis Tuti was re-arrested by the police and taken to Polres Jayapura where was kept for three days. The first days he was beaten by the officer Eli Awi. Then he was transferred to Abepura Prison. On 13 May 2007, he was assaulted by a prison guard and subsequently detained for one month in solitary confinement. During that time, he was not allowed to have visits from outside the prison; however other inmates could visit him. The wound on his foot was still infected and he had difficulties to walk. According to the forensic expert, he is in need of medical treatment." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 33 f)

"35. Heri Asso, Gustaf Ayomi and Jean Hasegem had been arrested in Wamena in 2003. During the interrogation of Gustaf Ayomi in an office of the criminal investigation department at Polres Jayawijaya, Wamena, officers put a leg of a chair on his thigh and sat on the chair. While experiencing severe pain, Ayomi was forced to keep the upper part of his body in a stressful upright position. Additionally, he was beaten with a stick all over his body, but particularly on his head. The ill-treatment lasted for an entire week, after which he was put into a small cell. He was not able to stand or walk for an entire week. Hasegem was interrogated separately by different officers at Polres Jayawijaya, Wamena. During the interrogation he was kicked and punched while being tied to a chair. His interrogation also lasted for about one week. Afterwards he was locked up in a small cell with eight other detainees. Asso was injured during the arrest and had to spend one week in hospital. Afterwards, he was transferred to Polres Wamena as well. 

36. During their trial proceedings before Wamena District Court, the group was represented by a State-appointed lawyer, who did not properly defend them. After the verdict, they were sent to Wamena prison. On 15 December 2004, a prison guard approached the group after lunch and invited them to a surprise Christmas party. They were taken to an office which members of the mobile police force entered to take the group, against their will, to the airport in order to transport them to Makassar prison. Their lawyers, families and friends had not been informed of the transfer. During the flight they were handcuffed. When they arrived at Makassar airport, officers chased them out of the plane by kicking them with their boots and hitting them with the butts of their rifles. Some of the detainees started bleeding. They had no complaints regarding Makassar prison. They received good vocational training. More than two years later, on 27 March 2007, Heri Asso, Gustaf Ayomi and Jean Hasegem were transferred from Makassar to Abepura. During the flight, they were again handcuffed; their feet were fixed with expanders and swelled up so that they were unable to stand or walk after the flight. Upon the Special Rapporteur’s visit on 16 November the group was detained in building 17 of Abepura prison. They said that on 1 July 2007 members of the mobile police, the city police and the military police transported them to the main police station in Jayapura, supposedly in an attempt to forward them to another prison outside of Papua. They were kept in custody together with Mr. Cosmos and Mr. Simpson until 5 July. On the third day, the group started a hunger strike, following which the head of Polsek sent them back to the prison in Abepura. Due to their weak health the detainees asked for medical examinations outside the prison, but their request was turned down. On 19 July 2007 they were again picked up by the police this time by truck, and transported to the office of the prosecutor. The detainees emphasized that the transport was a terrifying experience, due to the speed and style of driving. At the office, they were forced to sign a document. As for the conditions of detention, the group reports that some guards regularly get drunk and enter the detainees’ cell in order to extract money. All three voiced concern regarding the safety of their families, who had been repeatedly threatened in the past.

37. Women’s wing: Ten women (eight of which are convicts) were detained in three different cells. Overall the conditions were acceptable; the cells were clean and the women were allowed to use mobile phones and had access to additional food, coffee, etc. Most of the women had mattresses which they brought from outside. Disciplinary measures for persons who violated the rules were detention in solitary confinement for up to eight days and restriction of visits. Nine women and four babies were present. The babies were allowed to stay with their mothers up to two years, but needed to be fed by the families. The women reported that often there was not enough water. In principle, the families were allowed to visit themat any time, but most often one had to pay the officer on duty to be allowed to do so. Women are allowed to go out of the prison for one day, if they pay the guards. There were seven female officers." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 34 f)

"38. Female detainee, was arrested in September 2007 by one of her relatives, who shouted at her and handcuffed her. He then took her to Polsek and the prosecutor immediately signed her transfer to the prison. 

39. Ms. Sunarti, aged 42, from Makassar, was convicted to seven months in prison for gambling. She was arrested by six policemen on 14 March 2007. She was transferred to Polsek, where she stayed for one week, after which she was released because of her baby. On 8 May 2007 she was taken to the prison. She reported that some weeks ago when she asked an officer whether she could go home, she was insulted and beaten in front of her husband. When they tried to file a complaint, instead of launching an investigation, the police asked for documents that could prove their allegations. 

40. Minor’s cell: Four boys were detained in the cell; one of them aged 14, the others 17 and 18; all of them were very hesitant to speak to the Special Rapporteur. One of them had bad pain in his stomach. Although the nurse had given him medicine, his situation had not improved. He had not seen a doctor. According to the forensic doctor, he was in need of medical examination and treatment. 

41. Salmon, aged 18, from Papua. He was arrested at the seaport of Jayapura by two policemen (KP3 LAUT). They had beaten him with their hands in his face during the arrest. He was held at the police station for 28 days, but not ill-treated any more. However, he was subjected to threats. 

MILITARY PRISON ABEPURA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 15 November 2007)

42. Since the chief of the Military Detention Facility, 1st Lieutenant Yaman, was absent the Special Rapporteur interacted with the officer in charge, Colonel Marcus Paya, Commander of the Military Police. The day of the visit, 13 persons were detained in the facility, 6 men were held in the punishment cells. All of them were sentenced by the Military Court in Jayapura. for charges such as “indecency” or deserting. The longest sentence was 18 months, the lowest 8 months. The Special Rapporteur had to make several phone calls until he was granted access. But in violation of the terms of reference of the Special Rapporteur, Colonel Paya restricted the possibility of the Special Rapporteur to interview detainees in private. As a consequence, most detainees did not wish to speak to the Special Rapporteur. Others preferred to talk about their cases rather than about their treatment during detention. 

43. The Special Rapporteur notes with strong regret that this facility had not been mentioned on the list of military prisons provided by the authorities in Jakarta." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 35)

WAMENA PRISON (PAPUA)
(Visited on 16 November 2007)

44. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Director of the prison, Mr. Hendro Sekaryan. The total capacity of the institution is 114. On the day of the visit, the prison counted 111 detainees; 58 of them were convicts and 53 pre-trial detainees. Six of the latter were women. Two children (one boy and one girl) were staying respectively with their father and mother in the prison. Women are detained separately, but have to use the same courtyard as men when they want to leave their cell. The conditions in the prison are generally good.

45. The cell for newcomers is completely dark and hot and lacks ventilation. In principal, every new arrival is detained in this cell for three days and nights; however the length of detention in this cell seemed to be handled liberally. In addition, the Special Rapporteur received some reports that newcomers have to do push-ups, squats and other exercises in front of the other prisoners as a “welcome ceremony”. Some prisoners were reportedly beaten. Violation of the prison rules by detainees (e.g. attempts to escape and late return from their “errands”) was sometimes punished by beatings and several weeks in the newcomer’s cell, which amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. The guard Herman Matuan was known for beating the detainees when he was drunk. Many prisoners complained about the quality of the food.

46. The medical unit had no equipment due to lack of funds. There was one mentally ill prisoner, whom the director would like to transfer to a psychiatric hospital. No death in detention had been reported in the last two years. 

47. Prisoner, aged 31. His five-year-old boy stays with him in prison. He had to stay in the “welcome cell” for two days upon his arrival, which he perceived “as if he could not survive”. 

48. Prisoner, aged 25, was arrested together with friends on 3 September 2007 in Wamena by nine officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and subsequently taken to Polres, where they stayed for 15 days. Upon arrival at the Polres, he and his friends were slapped by the previous head of the CID, Alex Bleskadit, in his room. One of his friends was reportedly beaten so strongly that his ear started bleeding. He informed the Special Rapporteur that due to the high number of new arrivals (20 persons) at the prison, he and his friends were not detained in the newcomers’ cell. He had no complaints about the conditions in prison; the prisoners are allowed to play football, listen to music etc. 

49. Meki Elopere, aged 20, was beaten in Polres with an iron bar.

POLRES JAYAWIJAYA, WAMENA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 16 and 17 November 2007)

50. The Special Rapporteur was received by the chief of police, Marolop Manik, and the chief of CID, Mr Erlangga (the latter had served at Polres Jayawijaya only for one week). The detention facility, located at the entry post, consists of two small cells (175x175 cm). The day of the visit, there were five detainees dressed in new uniforms which they had received that same morning. They had been informed beforehand about the visit of the Special Rapporteur." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 36)

"51. Fermenas Kogoya, aged 37, had wounds in his face and reported that he had been beaten by the family of a girl who alleged that he had raped her on 14 November 2007. The police had taken him to the hospital first and then to the police station.

52. Beremius Wanimbo, aged 20, from Digimie Village, was arrested a few hours prior to the visit of the Special Rapporteur by members of the police pursuant to allegations of having raped a 13-year-old girl the night before and was subsequently taken to the Polres. There, he was confronted with the family of the rape victim, including the girl herself and a tribal chief. The police officers and the family proposed Mr. Wanimbo to solve the issue in a traditional, amicable way, meaning that he would be able to leave for an apology and the payment of 500,000 IDR (about 50$US) to the family. When Mr. Wanimbo denied any wrongdoing, the officers stripped him to the waist and started to beat and kick him. Mr. Wanimbu was punched several times in the face and the chest. At one point also the chief of the family gave him a strong blow on his face. The beating stopped when the Special Rapporteur arrived at the Polres. Mr. Wanimbo was about to put on his clothes when the Special Rapporteur entered the room. During the interview he was crying and shaking, and his allegations were corroborated by forensic evidence. The officer mainly responsible for the beatings was Erwin Banamasa, who admitted to it in front of the Special Rapporteur, the Chief of CID and the chief of police.

53. Subsequently the Special Rapporteur accompanied Mr. Wanimbu to the local hospital (Unit Gawat Darurat) in order to ensure that first aid would be provided and the medical evidence recorded. The doctor in charge, Dr. Prapti Dewi Suhirman, reported that the police came frequently to demand medical reports on injured detainees, but these documents were made available only to the police and not to the victim. Mr. Wanimbo received treatment at the hospital, but was later handed back to the officers of the Public Service Post, where he had been tortured earlier. 

54. The Special Rapporteur returned to the Polres on 17 November, in order to follow up. He was informed and shown documents indicating that disciplinary investigations were conducted by the Department for internal investigations, PROVOS, and concluded in the course of 16 November. The officers Erwin Banamasa, Maxon Yappo, Hermanus Karubaba and Nikolas Nelson Yerisetouw received a written warning and 21 days of disciplinary detention. Erwin Banamasa, who was the highest ranking officer, was additionally excluded from any training for one year. The criminal investigations based on article 352 (ill-treatment) were still ongoing. Banamasa complained to the Special Rapporteur that the ill-treatment of Wanimbo was a “light case”, and that the proceedings against him were “exaggerated”.

55. Mr. Hermamante, aged 31, from Timin, had been detained at the Polres for 16 days and indicated that a week earlier the cells had been overcrowded with up to 32 persons in the facility.

56. The Special Rapporteur trusts that the criminal investigation in relation to the abuse of Beremius Wanimbo will be conducted in an impartial and independent manner and be concluded without further delay. He wishes to be informed about the outcome of the criminal investigation." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 37)

"POLSEK KP 3, AIRPORT WAMENA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 16 November 2007)

57. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Chief of the Polsek, Jantje-Berhitu (Bripka). The facility consisted of three cells. On the day of the visit, the five detainees present were dressed in new uniforms which they had received the same morning, reportedly because of the visit of the Special Rapporteur. The detainees also indicated that they had received better food than usually. No complaint related to ill-treatment was made. A journalist in detention complained that he had no right to appeal his detention to a court. 

58. Chanri Suripati, aged 30, journalist, was arrested on 9 November 2007. He complained that he could not obtain a postponement of the detention. 

59. Detainee, arrested by the police on 5 November 2007, was taken to Polres and interrogated by CID. He made no allegations of ill-treatment.

POLSEK KURULU (PAPUA)
(Visited on 17 November 2007)

60. The Special Rapporteur was received by Marsel Mebel (Kapolsek) and Syarifudih (Brigpol). The detention facility consisted of two cells which were empty at the time of the Special Rapporteur’s visit. Generally, the officers explained that they tried to solve cases through community-based mediation and policing (Forum Kemitraan Polisi Masyarakat). No register was kept, but the officers maintained that the detention cells had not been used since August 2007 and that all detainees were being transferred immediately to Wamena. However, according to several graffiti and carvings on the walls of the cells, several persons had been detained for several days in this detention facility. The graffiti mentioned “suffering” and lack of food. One scribble apparently originated from a person held on 9 November 2007, which was in contradiction with the information provided by the officers. When confronted with the graffiti, Mr. Mebel explained that drunk persons were frequently kept in the cells for their own safety. However, since these persons were not considered “detainees” they were not noted in the register. 

POLSEK “HOM HOM”, WAMENA KOTA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 17 November 2007)

61. The Special Rapporteur was received by First Inspector Mr. Hajeri. The cells were empty. Mr. Hajeri explained that since the cells were not sufficiently clean, detainees had been transferred to Polres Jayawijaya, Wamena, for the preceding six months. The register of detainees, which included a number of inconsistencies, indicated that the last person had been detained there in May 2007. However, graffiti in the cells indicated that persons were locked up in the cells in June and July 2007. Confronted with this, Mr. Hajeri explained that drunk persons would be detained for one day or one night and that they were not considered as detainees. The alleged corresponding register however only contained the date of the arrest and did not include any information on the date of release, undermining safeguards against ill-treatment."(Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 38)
 
"POLSEK ABEPURA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 17 November 2007)
 
62. The Special Rapporteur was able to enter the detention facility only after a considerable period of waiting and discussions, but was finally received by Bominus Rumaropen (head of the Polsek). There were 11 detainees, two of whom were hidden in a separate interrogation room behind locked doors. The Special Rapporteur could only talk to them after insisting that the doors be opened. The youngest detainee was 13 years old. The facility consisted of three very dark cells (about 2m x8 m) lit by a lamp and little natural light coming in through small holes in the wall. The detainees had to sleep on mattresses they brought from home.

63. The Special Rapporteur met a detainee he had interviewed in Polres Wamena (see above): Fermenas Kogoya, who repeated his earlier story and reported that no violence was used against him. He was worried that in Abepura he would receive no food since his family was in Wamena and therefore not able to bring him food. 

64. Yusus Jamera, aged 22, from Jayapura, was arrested in Abepura on 16 October 2007 by his uncle who works in a detention house. He was then transferred to Polsek on the same day. During interrogation he was reportedly beaten with hands and wooden and iron sticks, on the lower back and the head, by an officer called Samalu until he confessed. Since then he had not experienced any more violence, but he complained about the insufficient quantity of food and water and explained that two or three detainees have to share one meal. 

65. The two detainees who were hidden from the Special Rapporteur were convicted prisoners who were sent back from Abepura Prison to this police station for reasons which remain unclear. The police chief indicated that he had already tried to send them back. One of the detainees was the brother of Yusak Pakage, who was sentenced for the murder of a policeman during the riots of 15 March 2006 to 15 years’ imprisonment (and was interviewed by the Special Rapporteur in Wamena prison; see above). He informed the Special Rapporteur that he was arrested one day after these riots and, since he did not confess, was shot in the leg at short range.

66. Habel Gombo, aged 20, from Dock 5 in Jayapura, was arrested on 6 November 2007. He was caught by the public after he tried to rob a lady at the market in Abepura and was subsequently taken to the police post at the market. Upon arrival there, three police officers punched him in the face and the upper body and beat him with a rubber stick on his head and back. In the course of the beatings his left cheek started bleeding. The robbed woman was present all the time of the beating and shouted insults. The injury on this cheek was examined by the Special Rapporteur’s forensic expert who concluded that the wound corroborated Mr. Gombo’s statement. On the same day Mr. Gombo was transferred to Polsek Abepura. Once he arrived there, three police officers, among them the commander on duty, jumped on his feet with their heavy combat boots. Mr. Gombo had not been interrogated and he did not know for how long he would have to stay at the Polsek or whether or when his case would be forwarded to the prosecutor." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 39)

"POLDA JAYAPURA (PAPUA)
(Visited on 17 November 2007)

67. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, Piet Waine, and the Chief of the Unit on Special Crime in CID, Irianto John. 13 detainees were in the cells when the Special Rapporteur arrived. Some walls had been painted and the whole facility cleaned prior to the visit of the Special Rapporteur. Several of the detainees mentioned that they did not receive any food because they were under the authority of the prosecutor. The management explained that as soon as the detention of a person was authorized by the prosecutor, the responsibility to provide food or at least to reimburse the police station shifted to the prosecutor. Since the prosecutor had not paid, the detainees under the authority of the prosecutor did not receive food. The Special Rapporteur asked the management that one prisoner who was guarded by the police station on behalf of Abepura Prison should immediately be transferred back.

68. In the women’s cell, there were six women and one 14-year-old boy who was exceptionally allowed to stay with his mother. All detained women had children. The women were detained in late August 2007 in two separate cases. They were allowed to leave the cell once a week. Since there was no toilet in the cell they had to call the guards when they wanted to relieve themselves. In general, this worked well, but sometimes the guards did not come to open the doors immediately, which meant that the women had to use plastic containers. They were allowed to receive visitors. One woman complained about headaches and, according to the doctor, received appropriate treatment. 

69. Four women were detainees under police authority; they were interrogated after their arrest on 29 and 30 August 2007 and reported that no violence had been used. They had not seen a judge and were not informed about any developments of their case. They had attempted to be released on bail in order to be able to look after their children, but were not successful. 

70. The remaining two women (detainees under the prosecutor’s authority) were charged with drug related crimes. They reported that they had been beaten and slapped during their arrest for one hour by the police to extract confessions and information about the drug providers (which they refused to report to the police). They reportedly sustained bruises on arms and some scars, which were not visible any more. They complained that since they were detained under the prosecutor’s authority, they were not provided with food. 

71. Detainee, charged with drug related crimes, complained about threats and beatings during detention. 

72. Detainee, complained about being forced to jump and squat in front of others, which he perceived as being humiliating. 

73. Detainee, aged 40, accused of a drug crime, was arrested on 27 August 2007 by seven drug police officers under the command of Iptu Alawah in his room in Jayapura. Upon his arrest he was handcuffed, forced to sit and beaten and kicked by them. They reportedly also stepped on his body and legs. He further complained about the lack of food." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 39)

"74. Mr. Muslimin, aged 35, from Ujune Pandane, was arrested on allegations of selling alcohol and violating health provisions. Members of the police entered his house on the evening of 29 August 2007 and collected his driving licence. Subsequently, the police searched his house without having presented a warrant and demolished most of his furniture. Mr. Muslimin, together with another man and six women from his neighbourhood, was taken to the Polda, where he was interrogated for the first and only time. Since then, he had not been interviewed by an officer and his case had not been processed. A request for a release on bail had been denied. Mr. Muslimin experienced the unclear status of his case as “mental torture” since he had been in detention for three months without knowing what would happen next. 

75. Sabar Olif Iwanggin, aged 34, from Asal, human rights lawyer by profession, was arrested on 18 October 2007 on charges of distributing a text message via his cell phone defaming the President of the Republic. During a meeting with Aloysius Renwarin, some 30 officers of the anti-terrorism unit Detachment 88, the criminal investigation police of POLDA and the Anti-Terror Special Force Unit of the National Police surrounded the building and arrested Sabar Olif. He was taken to Polda where he was interrogated from 3.30 p.m. until 5 a.m. the next morning by Polda officers. During the interrogation water was served; however, he felt extremely tired and depressed. On 20 October, at 10 a.m., the interrogation continued, this time conducted by officers of Detachment 88 who questioned him on his relation with the Free Papua Movement, OPM, and his involvement in the Abepura case as a human rights lawyer. Mr. Olif had no complaints about any ill-treatment; however, he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer and too tired to sign his own statement. On 26 October, Sabar Olif was transferred to Jakarta on a commercial flight during which he was not handcuffed. The transfer to Jakarta had not been announced, neither he nor his lawyer were informed in advance. He was in detention in Jakarta police headquarters from 27 October to 11 November, where he was interrogated two times. Sabar Olif’s main concern was that he had no idea of how long he would remain in detention. His case had not yet been forwarded to the prosecutor and his detention had been prolonged repeatedly. Sabar Olif perceived his treatment as discriminatory and related to his engagement as a human rights lawyer." (Human Rights Council, 10.03.2018, p. 41)

 

2006

2005

2004

 2nd Review by the CRC

 Concluding CRC Observations regarding 2nd report by Indonesia

 Reference: United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child,  Consideration of Reports submitted by States parties under Article 44 of the Convention, Concluding observations: Indonesia, CRC/C/15/Add.223 (26 February 2004), available here

"Health and welfare

55. While acknowledging the improvements in budget allocations to the health-care sector, the Committee remains concerned at the high maternal mortality rate, incidence of child malnutrition, proportion of children born with low birth weight and prevalence of infectious and, mosquito-borne diseases, including malaria, the low immunization rate and the lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation, particularly in conflict-affected areas.

56.The Committee is further concerned that the fragmentation of policies on health issues and care impedes the coordination and implementation of comprehensive approaches to child and adolescent health.

57.The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Ensure universal access to primary health care, especially maternal and child health-care services and facilities, including in rural and conflict-affected areas;
(b) Prioritize the provision of drinking water and sanitation services;
(c) Strengthen existing efforts to prevent malnutrition, malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases, to immunize as many children and mothers as possible, to make condoms and other contraceptives available throughout the country and to promote breastfeeding, and extend these programmes to all conflict-affected areas;
(d) Ensure that a life-course approach is taken with respect to child and adolescent health and development through the development of holistic and comprehensive health policies for children and adolescents;
(e)Seek cooperation in this matter from, among others, WHO." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 16.02.2004, p. 10f)

"61. However, the Committee is very concerned:
(a) That education is not free, even at primary level, and that higher education is not affordable for many families;
(b) At the high dropout and repeat rates; [...]
(d) At the high teacher-pupil ratio and the low level of ability of teachers;

[...]

The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Strengthen measures to achieve universal and free primary education;
(b) Progressively ensure that girls and boys, from urban, rural and least developed areas, have equal access to educational opportunities, without any financial obstacles; [...]
(d) Adopt effective measures to decrease the dropout, repeat and illiteracy rates; [...]
(f) Pursue its efforts to ensure that teachers are adequately trained;" (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 16.02.2004, p.13)

"Children affected by armed conflict, including child soldiers

67. The Committee is alarmed at the high level of fatalities in Aceh, West Kalimatan, Central Sulawesi, Maluku and Ambon, as well as those which resulted from the conflict in East Timor in 1999. The Committee is further concerned that children affected by armed conflict remain a particularly vulnerable group and that the perpetrators of violations of their human rights, especially during conflicts, are rarely prosecuted.

[...]

70. The Committee is further gravely concerned at the very large number of children displaced as a consequence of armed conflict.

71.The Committee urges the State party:
(a) To take measures to prevent and end the violence affecting children’s lives and rights, especially in areas such as Aceh, Maluku and West Papua; [...]
(e) To abide faithfully by the principles of human rights law and international humanitarian law and the conventions to which Indonesia is party;" (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 16.02.2004, p.14)

"Children belonging to a minority or an ethnic group

90. The Committee welcomes the adoption of the Human Rights Act of 1999, which recognizes the right to freedom of religion and worship of everyone. However, the Committee is still concerned that the rights of children belonging to a minority or ethnic group are not recognized by the Act and that these children also do not have adequate access to education, health and social services." (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 16.02.2004, p.18)

 

2003

2002

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on the mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, submitted in Accordance with Comission on Human Rights Resolution 2002/43, Report on the Mission to Indonesia, 15-24 July 2002, E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.2 (13 January 2003), available here

"The Special Rapporteur also received information on the situation of the administration of justice in Aceh, Papua and Moluccas. His request for access to these conflict areas was refused by the Government on the ground that his security could not be guaranteed." (Human Rights Council, 13.01.2003, p. 2)

"VIII. The Juducual System in the Areas of Conflict

69.The Special Rapporteur requested the Government for access to Aceh. The Special Rapporteur was not granted access. The Special Rapporteur received information on the judicial system from NGO sources but due to his inability to travel to these areas, it has not been possible to verify the information. For that reason and the required brevity of this report, with the limitation on the number of words, the Special Rapporteur regrets that he is unable to elaborate on the matters raised by the NGOs on the problems in these areas of conflict, namely Aceh, Papua and Moluccas, save to state that the concerns of the NGOs were that the administration of the justice in these areas have been adversely affected and in some districts courts do not function." (Human Rights Council, 13.01.2003, p. 16)

"102. The Special Rapporteur notes the refusal of the authorities to grant him access to Aceh to witness first-hand the functioning of the administration of justice system. The Special Rapporteur understands well the difficulties in having a transparent and effectively functioning justice system in areas of conflict. However, based upon the representations made to him, the Special Rapporteur finds that the people of Aceh, Papua and the Moluccas have no confidence in the administration of justice at a time when strong and courageous judges, prosecutors and lawyers are more needed than ever." (Human Rights Council, 13.01.2003, p. 21)

" 117. [Recommendations] With regard to the administration of justice in areas of conflict:

(a) The Government should grant early and unimpeded access to areas of conflict to the relevant mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, and other national and international observers;
(b) The Government should ensure that there is a minimum standard of justice functioning in areas of conflict, including qualified court and legal personnel;
(c) The Government should provide adequate protection to judges, prosecutors, lawyers and human rights defenders against all forms of threat, harassment and intimidation. In this regard, the Government’s attention is drawn to Principle 17 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which states: Where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their function they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities; and
(d) Reports of threats, harassment and intimidation should be promptly and thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice." (Human Rights Council, 13.01.2003, p. 25)

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Education on the Mission to Indonesia 

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, The right to education, Report submitted by Katarina Tomaševski, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission resolution 2002/23, Addendum, Mission to Indonesia, 1-7 July 2002, E/CN.4/2003/9/Add.1 (4 November 2002), available here

"13. One of the notable accomplishments in human rights has been open disclosure of abuses by previous regimes, often in the form of trials or truth commissions. The role of what is fondly, albeit wrongly, called “the international community” in facilitating such abuses has thus far remained beyond the pale. The impact of the transmigration programme on the recent and current armed conflicts in Indonesia highlights the necessity for change. Almost 7 million people were resettled from the inner and overpopulated islands, especially Java, to the outer islands such as Irian Jaya (West Papua) or Kalimatan. Incoming settlers may have moved voluntarily, but the indigenous population had no say. The World Bank was one of the principal funders of that programme and criticized for its policy. The grounds for criticism proved to be a part of the chain of events that has caused deadly conflicts. The impact “both on the Javanese who found themselves in an alien environment and culture and on the indigenous people whose communally-held lands had been appropriated by the Government and awarded to new settlers” was anticipated. The Special  Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons has highlighted those intercommunal conflicts that can be traced to the transmigration programme. There are also fears that coping with the large numbers of the internally displaced may sow the seeds of future conflicts." (Human Rights Council, 04.11.2002, p. 7)

"B. Cross-sectoral links with poverty eradication and conflict prevention

58. A direct link between poverty reduction and human rights stems from poverty as a result of the denial or violations of human rights. This is routinely the case for women, whose absent rights to land ownership, bank loans or formal employment foreclose positive effects which education could have as a pathway out of poverty. This also applies to minorities, as acknowledged by the World Bank. 55 The pattern of poverty is a factor fuelling conflicts, with the incidence of poverty in Irian Jaya (Papua) 10 times higher than in Jakarta. Thus, rights-based indicators 57 could be a useful tool for linking poverty and conflict. Indonesia’s ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires data to be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, religion and language as well as minority and indigenous status. Moreover, violence and armed conflicts are a gender issue as “teenagers and young men” are the key actors. 58 Rights-based indicators would provide the knowledge necessary for designing strategies for effectively addressing poverty and conflict through education." (Human Rights Council, 04.11.2002, p. 17)

"62. The Ministry of Education has 1.8 million employees, including teachers. 64 The springboard for such a huge staff, the previous top-down approach, should be transformed into a bottom-up approach. Decentralization is ongoing, based on the statutory devolution of authority for delivering most government services, including education, to the local authorities. The process of decentralization is evolving rapidly and the rulebook is being written. Many problems have to be solved, ranging from the mismatch between financial needs arising from new responsibilities and available revenue and the fate of education in the allocation of that revenue. There are fears that inequalities will increase, and Irian Jaya, accorded special autonomy on 1 January 2002, is used as an example. The province changed its name to Papua and the provincial government can keep up to 80 per cent of revenue from the exploitation of rich local resources, but it must allocate 30 per cent to education. This has enabled the provincial government to introduce compulsory education free of charge. 65 Regions and communities without such endowments do not have this option and will have to rely on a countrywide mechanism for equalizing public funding. Moreover, transparency in budgetary allocations and the flow of funds as well as effective remedies for misallocation or corruption are necessary." (Human Rights Council, 04.11.2002, p. 18)

 

2001

1st Review by the UN Committee against Torture

Considerations regarding reports submitted by States

Reference: United Nations, Committee Against Torture, Report of the Committee Against Torture,  A/57/44(SUPP) paras. 36-46, (17 October 2002), available here

"D. Subjects of concern

42. The Committee is concerned about:

(a) The large number of allegations of acts of torture and ill-treatment committed by members of the police forces, especially the mobile police units (“Brimob”), the army (TNI), and paramilitary groups reportedly linked to authorities, and in areas of armed conflict (Aceh, Papua, Maluku, etc.);
(b) Allegations of excessive use of force employed against demonstrators or for purposes of investigation
(c) Allegations that paramilitary groups, reported to be perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment in Indonesia, are supported by some parts of the military, and sometimes reportedly are joined by military personnel;
(d) Allegations of numerous attacks directed against human rights defenders, sometimes leading to death;
(e) Allegations that human rights abuses related to the Convention are sometimes committed by military personnel employed by businesses in Indonesia to protect their premises and to avoid labour disputes;
(f) Allegations of inadequate protection against rape and other forms of sexual violence, which are frequently alleged to be used as forms of torture and ill-treatment;
(g) The high number of persons reported to be suffering from the after-effects of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (Human Rights Council, 17.10.2002, p. 23 f)

"(a) A climate of impunity, promoted in part by the fact that there has been little progress in bringing to trial members of the military, the police or other State officials, particularly those holding senior positions, who are alleged to have planned, commanded and/or perpetrated acts of torture and ill-treatment;
(b) The failure of the State party to provide in every instance prompt, impartial and full investigations into the numerous allegations of torture reported to the authorities, as w ell as to prosecute alleged offenders, as required in articles 12 and 13 of the Convention;
(c) The insufficient level of guarantees of the independence and impartiality of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas-HAM) which hinders it in fully carrying out its mandate, which includes sole responsibility under Law 2000/26 for conducting initial investigations relating to gross violations of human rights, including torture, prior to forwarding cases to the Attorney-General for prosecution. Because only the Attorney-General has the authority to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings, the Committee is further concerned that all the reports of Komnas-HAM on preliminary investigations are not published, and that Komnas-HAM does not have the right to challenge a decision by the Attorney-General not to prosecute a case." (Human Rights Council, 17.10.2002, p. 23 f)

 

Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons on the mission to Indonesia

Reference: United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Specific Groups and Individuals: Mass Exodus and Displaced Persons, Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2001/54, Addendum, E/CN.4/2002/95/Add.2 (15 February 2002), available here

"1. Internal displacement is a relatively new phenomenon in Indonesia. Indeed, the displacement crisis, which now affects some 1.3 million people, should be viewed against the background of the profound changes that the country has undergone since 1998. With the resignation of President Suharto (who ruled for 32 years), dramatic events have taken place: transition to a democratic system of government, decentralization, military reform (although the military remains the most influential force in the country), the independence of East Timor, and renewed separatist movements. These major changes, coupled with the 1997-1998 economic crisis and experimentation with a more open society, helped to ignite existing tensions among different ethnic and religious groups throughout the country, which in turn produced major displacement. In general terms, most of the displacement is due to intercommunal, inter-ethnic and/or religious fighting between Christian and Muslim groups. These are referred to as “horizontal” conflicts. However, in the provinces of Aceh and Papua (formerly Irian Jaya), displacement is due to fighting between Indonesian security forces and separatist rebels (GAM-Free Aceh Movement and OPM-Free Papua Movement), who are seeking independence from Indonesia. These are considered to be “vertical” conflicts.

[...]

3. Perhaps the most outstanding aspect of Indonesia’s problems is the size and configuration of the country. The fourth most populous nation in the world, Indonesia contains some 500 ethnic groups who speak over 500 distinct languages and dialects. Internal displacement today affects more than 18 provinces in this expansive archipelago encompassing some 17,508 islands (over 3,000 of which are inhabited). Most of the displacement* is located in the provinces of Maluku and North Maluku (466,409 persons) followed by Sulawesi Island (287,044) and Java (186,806). However, internally displaced persons are also found in West Kalimantan (58,544), on the islands of Sumatra (52,647), Papua (16,600), Riau (3,135) and Bali (2,974). For detailed figures, see paragraph 23 below and appendix 2. "(Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 5)

"15. The crisis of internal displacement in Indonesia has emerged mainly during the last three years, as a result of major political, economic and social changes following the resignation of President Suharto in 1998 and the independence of East Timor, which the Representative visited in 2000 (see E/CN.4/2000/83/Add.3). It is against this background that the country has also seen renewed separatist movements in Aceh and Papua and a series of interreligious and inter-ethnic conflicts that have erupted in several parts of the country, causing the displacement of a large number of people." (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 8 f)

"16. The causes of displacement in Indonesia are complex but are mostly associated with conflicts which are usually classified as “vertical” or “horizontal” conflicts. Vertical conflicts are those between the Government and local separatist groups, such as in Aceh and Papua, and horizontal conflicts are between different religious or ethnic groups, such as in the Malukus, West and Central Kalimantan, Madura and Sulawesi."

[...]

"19. Vertical conflicts between separatist groups and the military in Aceh and Papua have been accompanied by especially severe human rights abuses and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population, which often is caught, or fears being caught, between the various warring parties. In Aceh in particular, the military has been criticized for use of disproportionate force and abuses against civilians, especially after its soldiers have been attacked. On the other islands the military and the police have been criticized for their inability to stop the violence between ethnic and religious groups, for taking sides with one group or another, as in the Malukus, and for failing to prevent displacement. There have also been allegations that the army, long the most powerful force in the society, has been fomenting a climate of unrest throughout the country in order to demonstrate the need for a strong military to restore order and to influence the debates on reforming the army and limiting its role and functions. 7 Control of natural resources in some provinces has also been a cause of clashes between the Government and local groups and between groups, in particular between transmigrants and the local population." (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 9)

"22. The registered internally displaced persons fall into four main categories: those displaced by natural disasters (North Sumatra, North Sulawesi); those displaced by religious conflicts that erupted into violence (the Malukus, Central Sulawesi); those displaced by ethnic conflicts that turned violent (Central and West Kalimantan); and displacement with separatist movements (Aceh and Papua) (see appendix II). These affected people all fall within the definition of internally displaced persons as set forth in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”. (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 10)

"28. In other areas, especially in the provinces affected by separatist conflicts, the Representative was informed that humanitarian assistance was often impeded by the lack of minimum security conditions and of access to displaced populations by humanitarian organizations. Indeed, access to most conflict areas is limited or non-existent. The Indonesian Red Cross (PMI), with the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is one of the few organizations that has access to Aceh and Papua and is providing humanitarian assistance, helping with the reunification of separated family members and, at times, evacuating civilians to safe places. Humanitarian staff have also been harassed in some areas where security forces are reported to view humanitarian organizations working in conflict areas, as well as the civilian population, with suspicion and distrust.

[...]

30. Several other serious incidents have also occurred in other provinces and reports indicate that there are official plans to increase significantly the military presence in Aceh, Papua, Maluku, North Maluku, Kalimantan and Atambua. In December 2001, President Megawati Sukarnoputri expressed fear about the possible “break-up” of the nation. This might have the effect of encouraging the army to adopt tougher measures that could endanger respect for human rights. Indeed, plans for increased military presence have raised serious concerns about the manner in which conflicts among ethnic groups will be resolved, the treatment of civilians, and the extent to which internally displaced communities will be protected." (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 12)

"43. OCHA has the responsibility of supporting the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in conducting humanitarian assessments and coordination functions in responding to humanitarian emergencies. One of the initiatives it has undertaken has been the collection of data and information on the conditions of internally displaced persons in several provinces and in Jakarta. Based on this information, as well as other sources, OCHA produces a weekly situation report, which includes general information on various provinces and a summary of the main assistance provided by humanitarian agencies. These reports, which have become an important early warning and contingency planning tool, are disseminated among relevant humanitarian actors at the national and international levels and can be found on the OCHA web site (http://www.ocha.org) or through the relief web site (http://www.reliefweb.org). OCHA also plays an active coordinating role among United Nations agencies, and with NGOs, the Red Cross movement, the Government of Indonesia, donors, and other members of the humanitarian community with regard to the internally displaced. In 2001, it sent at least two missions to Kalimantan to look into the impact of the Dayak-Madurese conflict, particularly as it related to internally displaced persons. In addition to the Jakarta-based office, for the year 2001/2002, OCHA has identified the need to establish or maintain a field presence in Aceh, Ambon, Ternate, Kupan and Jayapura, mainly to facilitate the coordination of the humanitarian assistance, but also to conduct regular monitoring of the humanitarian situation through routine assessments." (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 16 f)

44. Most important is the elaboration of the 2002 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Indonesia focused on internally displaced persons and host communities. Indeed, the recent consultative process for the Appeal, which was coordinated by OCHA, presented an important opportunity for international non-governmental actors and relevant government authorities to coordinate their efforts to improve local services at the community level. The 2002 Appeal contains programmes for displaced persons uprooted by conflict from the provinces of Aceh, West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan and Madura, Central Sulawesi, Malukus and Papua and for their host communities. Given the tensions between internally displaced populations and their host communities in a number of areas, the broad focus of the Appeal is valuable. The Appeal also includes initiatives for contingency planning in case of future emergency situations in areas with ongoing conflicts." (Economic and Social Council, 15.02.2002, p. 17)

 

2000

1999

 

Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its Mission to Indonesia 

Reference: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to Indonesia (31 January-12 February 1999), E/CN.4/2000/4/Add.2 (12 August 1999), available here

"8. The Group attached considerable importance to discussion and consultations with representatives of non-governmental organizations and with lawyers, both from Jakarta and from other Indonesian provinces. [...] It met separately with the lawyers of Xanana Gusmao, as well as with human rights lawyers and NGO representatives from Aceh and Irian Jaya provinces, and representatives of the Protestant Church in Irian Jaya." (Human Rights Council, 12.08.1999, p. 4)

"16. The Government has revoked the status of “special military operation zones” (Daerah Operasi Militer (DOM)) for the provinces of Aceh (August 1998), Irian Jaya (October 1998) and East Timor, this status being replaced by another concept (see para. 44 below). As a result, some 1,300 combat troops have been removed from these areas and, according to the Government, ounter-insurgency military operations have been suspended. There have been further repeated statements by the Government that the Anti-Subversion Law of 1963, under which many prisoners (including the oldest ones) and prisoners of conscience had been convicted, would be abrogated. Meanwhile, its application has been suspended." (Human Rights Council, 12.08.1999, p. 5)

"The special military operation zones (Daerah Operasi Militer (DOM))

43. The proclamation of these zones, whose objective is said to be to “preserve security in a dangerous area”, does not appear to have any legal basis. Certain military authorities invoke, without any other clarification,“ the duty of the armed forces to preserve the national unity”. Others argue that Law No. 16/1960 governing the provision of assistance to the army to the regional authorities and Law No. 28/1997 on assistance to the police provide an indirect legal basis for the proclamation of these zones. In practice, the proclamation of such a zone, which is made without any legal formality, results from a decision of the Minister of Defence which is relayed to the military commander of the regional military zone. The decision is not published in the Official Journal and the length of time during which it will apply is not specified. The population only learns about it through hearsay or by witnessing the progressive arrival and stationing of special military units. This DOM status applied in the provinces of Aceh, Irian Jaya and East Timor.

44.  Where the DOM status applied, the police, in principle, kept their legal prerogatives but, de facto, it was the army that made the majority of arrests. At present, in principle, if the case is one of common delinquency, it is transferred within 24 hours to the police and the procedure thereafter followed civil law rules. If, however, the case concerns an individual accused of being linked to “subversion”, the investigation was conducted by a special investigation service of the armed forces (KOPASSUS). Following a directive of the Minister of Justice, DOM status was recently replaced by that of “Critical Control Area” (Pengavalair Daerah Rawan); this has the object of giving priority to pacification operations, through development and rehabilitation, but the status of Critical Control Area does not clarify the role of the armed forces in the event of arrest.

45.Currently, anti-guerrilla units only intervene in the event of trouble or riots and thus are no longer stationed permanently in the areas concerned. On the other hand, the armed forces can detain individuals suspected of having links with the guerrilla but who have not committed homicide or murder. According to a military officer interviewed by the Group, this is “to ensure the protection and re-educate them”. (Human Rights Council, 12.08.1999, p. 11 f)

"Detention of individuals participating in symbolic flag-raising ceremonies in Irian Jaya

63. In Jakarta, the Group met with representatives of the Protestant Church in Irian Jaya, as well as with NGO representatives from this province. It was informed that a group of people were arrested in late summer and early autumn 1998 for their role in symbolic flag-raising ceremonies which took place at Wamena, in the province of Irian Jaya, from 6 to 8 July 1998. Similar events took place outside the parliament building in Jayapura, as well as on the island of Biak and in Sorong. Thereafter, 10 individuals were arrested in Wamena on 6 and 7 August 1998 and were all charged under article 106 of the Criminal Code (Crimes against the security of the State). The charges against them include planning the ceremony, manufacturing the West Papuan flag and banners, raising the flag and being present during the - peaceful - flag-raising ceremony. Most were not shown a warrant until 24 hours after their arrest; all were refused access to lawyers during interrogation in pre-trial detention. Their trials started in December 1998.

64. Another group of individuals faces trial on Biak, following a flag-raising ceremony in July 1998 which was dispersed by the security forces. From 2 to 6 July 1998, public demonstrations took place at the Community Health Centre near Biak Port. Led by Filip Jakob Samuel Karma, an employee of the regional government, people gathered to demand independence for the province. In the early morning of 6 July 1998, troops opened fire on hundreds of unarmed demonstrators and took over 100 individuals into custody, most of whom were released shortly thereafter. The individuals currently facing trial were arrested without warrants. All of them were charged under article 106 of the Criminal Code and many face subsidiary charges under article 154 of the Criminal Code. 9 Military forces were involved in the arrest of these individuals, many of whom were interrogated without legal representation.

65. On the basis of the information conveyed to it, the Working Group considers that the majority of individuals facing charges in connection with the above-mentioned symbolic flag-raising ceremonies were arrested for having mostly peacefully exercised their beliefs, and that their detention is arbitrary within the meaning of category II of the Group's methods of work." (Human Rights Council, 12.08.1999, p. 16 f)

"89. On the other hand, the incidence of violence accompanying repressive activities has hardly diminished (for example, in Aceh, Irian Jaya and East Timor). Arrests continue to be characterized by numerous flaws that result in detentions being arbitrary within the meaning of one of the three categories under the Group's working methods." (Human Rights Council, 12.08.1999, p. 21)

 

1998

Combined 2nd and 3rd Review by the UN Committee for the Eradication of Discrimination against Women

 Report of the CEDAW Committee - Concluding Comments

 Reference: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Eighteenth and nineteenth sessions), Concluding Comments, A/53/38/REV.1(SUPP) paras. 262-311 (1 January 1998), available here

"291. The Committee is concerned about women’s low rates of participation in education, as well as the high level of illiteracy among women, especially in the rural areas. It notes that education is a basic human right and that while the State has made some efforts to facilitate the education of poor but gifted children, the Committee remains concerned about the access to education of all children, including those from minority groups." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 01.01.1998, p. 26)

"295. The Committee is concerned that the information provided on the situation of women in areas of armed conflict reflects a limited understanding of the problem. The Government’s remarks are confined to the participation of women in the armed forces and do not address the vulnerability of women to sexual exploitation in conflict situations, as well as a range of other human rights abuses affecting women in such contexts." (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 01.01.1998, p. 27)

 


“Switzerland expressed concern about acts of intolerance and discrimination perpetrated against religious and ethnical minorities or against people for their sexual orientation or gender identity. It remained concerned by cases of abuse of prisoners, in particular those that had occurred in Western Papua and Papua provinces in 2010. Switzerland made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 6)

“The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed Indonesia’s ratification of the CRPD and efforts to address challenges in Papua and West Papua, where it noted an increase in violence. It noted the occurrence of friction between religious groups and attacks against minorities and encouraged Indonesia to tackle violence against minority faiths and accept visit requests by Special Rapporteurs. It made recommendations.”  (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 7)

“The United States of America commended Indonesia’s pursuit to promote prosperity and address grievances in the Papuan provinces though it remained concerned about allegations of abuses. It voiced concern about the failures to create and enforce a framework of accountability for abuses by the military and police and to protect certain religious minorities. It made recommendations.(Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 7f)

"Germany asked Indonesia whether it intended to release Filep Karma and other political detainees. Regarding the conflict in the Papua provinces, it valued the efforts made to resolve the conflict through dialogue, but noted that serious human rights violations remained to be addressed. Germany made recommendations." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 10)

“France remained concerned by the acts of violence committed by the police against human rights defenders. It deplored the violations of human rights against persons belonging to religious minorities, in particular against Ahmadis and the Papuan community. France made recommendations. (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 10)

“Italy commended Indonesia’s commitment to promoting interfaith dialogue but expressed concern about reported violence against religious minorities. Italy asked Indonesia to provide an update on the implementation of the 2001 special law granting autonomy to the region of West Papua. It made a recommendation.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 11)

“Japan welcomed President Yudhoyono’s plan to offer an apology for past human rights violations during the Suharto era. It encouraged Indonesia to make full use of the Principles and Guidelines for the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons Affected by Leprosy and Their Family Members. Japan voiced concern at reported human rights violations in Papua. Japan made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 11)

“New Zealand was encouraged by Indonesia’s establishment of the Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua and the intended change from a “security approach” to a “welfare and justice approach” for Papuans. It thanked Indonesia for information on the progress made in ratifying OPCAT and the Rome Statute. It made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 12)

“Norway expressed concern about reports of harassment and discrimination of religious minorities and non-believers in Indonesia. It noted that some human rights defenders experience challenges in operating freely in the Papua provinces. Norway made recommendations.” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 13)

“Responding to observations made, the delegation referred to the situation in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. In order to optimize the implementation of Special Autonomy and expedite the development in Papua as well as West Papua, the Government has established the Special Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua, through Presidential Decrees No. 65/2011 and No. 66/2011. This special Unit has
 formulated several quick programmes related to the enhancement of food security, poverty eradication, community-based economic development, education, health, and basic infrastructures. The Government continues to be committed to implement and optimize the special autonomy for the two provinces and to pursue the welfare and development approach in the two provinces. Responding to the comment raised on a reported general
 climate of impunity, the delegation explained that, unlike the past, members of the police and TNI who committed excesses in carrying out their responsibilities to maintain law and order have been held accountable and brought before the relevant courts. The delegation underscored the fact that the Government is keen to ensure that no cases or excesses occur on the part of the military or police in the carrying out of their responsibilities to maintain law and order in the two provinces." (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 13)

"The  recommendations  formulated  during  the  interactive  dialogue and listed below enjoy the support of Indonesia:" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 14)

“Implement comprehensive human rights training, with regular reviews to ensure effectiveness, for all military and police personnel, including
 those working in the Papua and West Papua provinces (New Zealand);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 16)

“Ensure free access for civil society and national journalists to Papua and West Papua (France)” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 21)

“Enhance efforts to provide adequate protection to human rights defenders and to improve the human rights situations of ethnic and religious
 groups in certain regions, including Papua (Republic of Korea);”  (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 21)

“Ensure that provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Code, such as articles 106 and 110 are not misused to restrict the freedom of speech (Germany);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 21)

"Immediately grant access to the delegates of ICRC to the Papua provinces in order for them to fulfil their mandate (Germany);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 23)

“Extend an invitation to the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; Independent Expert on minority issues; Special Rapporteur on the right to food; and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples in order that they visit Indonesia, particularly Papua (Mexico);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 23)

“Halt immediately reported human rights violations by military and police officers and a general climate of impunity in Papua (Japan);” (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)

“Ensure free access for foreign journalists to Papua and West Papua (France);”  (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)

“Take steps, particularly in Papua, to increase protection for human rights defenders against stigmatization, intimidation and attacks and to ensure respect for freedom of expression and peaceful protest, including through a review of regulations that can be used to restrict political expression, in particular article 106 and 110 of the criminal code, and the release of those detained solely for peaceful political activities (Canada);" (Human Rights Council 05.07.2012: p. 24)