Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDONESIA: Police shot civilians in a petty fight in Papua resulted in one person died and four others injured

INDONESIA: Police shot civilians in a petty fight in Papua resulted in one person died and four others injured

June 28, 2012

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2012

28 June 2012

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INDONESIA: Police shot civilians in a petty fight in Papua resulted in one person died and four others injured

ISSUES: Extrajudicial killing, police violence, right to life, inhuman & degrading treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the death of a civilian and the injury of five others after the police shot them in a petty fight in Degeuwo, Papua, on 15 May 2012. The five civilians were having an argument with the owner of a billiard parlour they were visiting. The owner of the parlour called the police and three officers arrived and became involved in a fight with the civilians. None of the civilians were armed at that time.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to KontraS and local activists in Papua, on 15 May 2012 at around 6.30pm, Lukas Abaa, Yulianus Kegepe and Amos Abaa came to a billiard parlour located in the Degeuwo gold mining area, at location No. 45. They came to the parlour to play some games but, due to misunderstandings between them and the owner of the parlour, ended up having an argument with the non-Papuan owner, Mrs. Yona. She was upset because Lukas and his friends insisted to play there despite her refusal to their visit. (Photos: Yulianus Kegepe after the shooting. Source: local activist).

Due to the argument, Mrs. Yona decided to call the Mobile Brigadier (Brimob) Post Commander at location No. 99. Soon after she made the phone call, three police officers came and asked the four Papuans to leave. Lukas and his friends disregarded the police request and the police respoinded by shooting Amos Abaa in his left leg. Right after the shooting, Melianus Kegepe who lives nearby came because he could hear the shooting. Seeing Amos was injured by the police, Lukas, Melianus, and Yulianus wanted to fight back. One of the officers opened fire against them and it resulted in the death of Melianus who was shot in his stomach. Yulianus and Lukas attempted to escape but the police officers shot them as they were running away. Yulianus was shot in his waist and Lukas was shot in the back. Selpius Kegepe, who was around the location at that time, heard the shooting and attempted to attack the officers to stop them. He, however, was also shot in his right arm. He and the other gunshot victims were later brought to Jayapura and Nabire hospitals. The last information that AHRC received in relation to the officers who committed the shooting is that they were under investigation by the Profession and Security Division, an internal disciplinary mechanism, of Papua Regional Police. (Photos: Lukas Kegepe. Source: local activists).


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on The Use of Force establishes that live ammunition should be used only to stop activities which threat the safety of public or the police. The Regulation also establishes that the use of lethal weapons including live ammunitions should be used as a last resort, in accordance with international human rights law which upholds that law enforcement officials may use force and firearms only in a situation where it is strictly necessary. In addition to the ‘necessity’ principle, the police is also obliged to adhere to the ‘proportionality’ principle in using force and firearms, as stipulated in Principle No. 5 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The Basic Principles also set out that the arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials should be punished as a criminal offence.

Indonesia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 6 of which guarantees the right to life of everyone. The right to life as stipulated in the ICCPR does not merely mandate the state parties to refrain from any unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life, but also to conduct effective investigations into situations where state officials have been responsible for the taking of life. The failure of the relevant authorities to conduct investigation in this case, therefore, is a further violation of the right to life.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please urge the authorities listed below to ensure an independent and effective investigation in this case to take place. The officers who conducted the shooting should be tried by an open and independent court which applies criminal law. Please also call the Indonesian government to provide remedies for the victims and their families.

The AHRC is writing separately to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions as well as the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to ask for their intervention in this matter.

To support this appeal, please click here: 


SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

INDONESIA: Police shot civilians in a petty fight in Papua resulted in one person died and four others injured

Name of dead victim: Melianus Kegepe
Name of injured victims: Lukas Abaa, Yulianus Kegepe, Amos Abaa, Selpius Kegepe
Names of alleged perpetrators: Police officers who are under the Papua Regional Police and in charge for Post 99 at Degeuwo gold mining area
Date of incident: 15 May 2012
Place of incident: Degeuwo, Paniai, Papua

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the shooting against civilians committed by the police officers of Papua Regional Police who are in charge for Post 99 at Degeuwo gold mining area on 15 May 2012. The shooting has resulted in the death of Melianus Kegepe and the injury of four others: Lukas Abaa, Yulianus Kegepe, Amos Abaa and Selpius Kegepe.

I was informed that all this started with an argument between Lukas, Amos and Yulianus who came to a billiard parlour owned by Mrs. Yona in Location No. 45 of the Degeuwo gold mining area. They were arguing because Lukas, Amos and Yulianus insisted to play a game in the parlour although the owner has told them to leave. Mrs. Yona later called the Mobile Brigadier (Brimob) Post Commander at location No. 99 which was followed up quickly with a visit of three police officers to the parlour. They asked Lukas and his friends to leave but their request was disregarded. As a response, one of the officers shot Amos Abaa’s left leg. Melianus Kegepe, who lives around, heard the shooting so he decided to come to the location. With Lukas and Yulianus, he tried to fight back but the officers started shooting them again. One of the bullets hit Melianus in his stomach and he died instantly.

Yulianus and Lukas tried to escape but the police shot them as they were running away. Yulianus was shot in the waist while Lukas was shot in the back. A passer-by, Selpius Kegepe, heard the shooting and attempted to stop the police officers. He was also got shot in his right arm.

According to the Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 concerning the Use of Force, live ammunition should be used by officers only in situation when the safety of the public or the police is at stake. I am of the view that there had been no threat posed neither to public or police safety in this case as Lukas, Selpius, Yulianus, Amos and Melianus were unarmed. The use of lethal force by the police officers was not necessary and proportionate. The shooting, therefore, amounts to the arbitrary or abusive use of firearms which according to UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, should be punished as a criminal offence.

I, however, have been informed that three officers who conducted the shooting are currently being investigated by the Profession and Security Division (Propam) of Papua Regional Police. I regret the way the police are dealing with this case as I am aware that the Propam is merely an internal disciplinary mechanism within the police. I am calling you to ensure that the police officers engaged in the shooting to be tried by an independent and open court that applies criminal law, in accordance with international human rights standards and principles. I am also urging you to provide remedies to the victims as well as their families.

I look forward to your adequate, effective and swift response in this case.


Yours sincerely,

----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
President of Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Veteran No. 16
Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 345 8595
Fax: +62 21 3483 4759
E-mail: presiden@ri.go.id

2. Ms. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo
General Director of Human Rights
Ministry of Law and Human Rights
Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav. 6-7
Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 525 3006, 525 3889
Fax: +62 21 525 3095

3. Gen. Timur Pradopo
Chief of the Indonesian National Police
Jl. Trunojoyo No. 3
Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan 12110
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 384 8537, 726 0306
Fax: +62 21 7220669
E-mail: info@polri.go.id

4. Irjenpol. Bigman Lumban Tobing
Chief of Papua Regional Police
Jl. Samratulangi No. 8
Jayapura
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 967 531 1014

5. Mr. Ifdhal Kasim
Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM)
Jl. Latuharhary No. 4-B
Jakarta 10310
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 392 5227
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
E-mail: info@komnasham.go.id

 

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-110-2012
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.