Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDONESIA: Three Papuans engaged in a peaceful demonstration were killed allegedly by security officers while 45 others were arrested

INDONESIA: Three Papuans engaged in a peaceful demonstration were killed allegedly by security officers while 45 others were arrested

June 29, 2012

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-113-2012

29 June 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INDONESIA: Three Papuans engaged in a peaceful demonstration were killed allegedly by security officers while 45 others were arrested

ISSUES: Freedom of expression, military, police violence, inhuman & degrading treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the shooting, beatings and assaults directed by security officers against peaceful protesters in Sentani, Papua on 4 June 2012. The shooting and attacks allegedly resulted in the death of three protesters while 45 others were arrested and some ill-treated. The protest was organised by the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) to urge the government to investigate several shootings against civilians which recently took place in Papua.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to local Papuan activists interviewed by the AHRC, at around 11.30am on 4 June 2012, activists of KNPB were gathering in Jalan Sosial as well as Pos Tujuh before departing to the office of the local autonomy parliament (DPRP) in Abepura to hold a peaceful demonstration. Eleven trucks were prepared by the organisers to take the protesters to the DPRP office and to carry more protesters gathered in Kampung Harapan who would also join the demonstration later. (Photo: One of the victims killed, Panuel Tablo, at the hospital. source: local activists)

At around 12pm, the protesters started leaving Jalan Sosial and Pos Tujuh to Kampung Harapan to pick up more protesters there. When they arrived in Kampung Harapan, the police asked the protesters to disperse. According to the police, the demonstration was conducted without any permission from the police. The protesters ignored the request of the police and continued the journey to the DPRP office. They requested a permit to Papua Regional Police in advance, in compliance with Law No. 9 Year 1998 regarding the Freedom to Express Opinion in Public, but the police just did not issue the permit for them.

As the protesters arrived in Telaga Maya, there were more security officers from various institutions–allegedly from the Jayapura District Police, Sentani Sub-District Police, and the Indonesian Military-who asked them to disperse. It is reported that there were transport trucks and armoured vehicles and the security officers were armed. The protesters were unable to move anywhere as they were surrounded by the security forces and their vehicles and the lake and mountain nearby blocked other routes for the protesters to leave.

Following this, the coordinator of the demonstration, Agus Kossay, announced to the protesters to leave and return home. As the protesters were marching back home, the security officers were slowly following them. When the protesters reached Kampung Harapan, they tried sit down and rest but the police prohibited them from doing so. At this point, the members of the security officers opened fire to intimidate the protesters and disperse the group. This triggered chaos. The security officers fired further rounds at the protesters which resulted in the death of Yesa Mirin and Panuel Tablo. It is reported that another man named Tanius Kalakmabin also died during the forced dispersal by the security officers yet his death and the cause is still unconfirmed. Video footage of Panuel Tablo and his family at a hospital in Yowari, Sentani, is available here. (Photo: dead body of Yesa Mirin at the hospital.)

Forty five protesters were arrested and brought to Sentani Sub-District Police Station. To date, no further information regarding their identities, charges and possible release are available. According to a participant of the demonstration, many of the protesters were also beaten and assaulted. Many protesters tried to flee towards the nearby mountains and lake for their safety. The security officers followed them and searched for the protesters who had started to go into hiding for hours. At around 5pm, the protesters started leaving in small groups from that location.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Public assemblies and demonstrations in Papua are routinely faced with large scale deployments of security forces. The serious human rights condition and numerous violations including killings and arbitrary arrests in Papua have been an issue of concern for years. In the latest UN UPR session on Indonesia, for instance, many states such as France, Germany and the United States of America expressed its concern on the issue of freedom of expression and opinion in Papua.

Under Article 10 of Indonesian Law No. 9 Year 1998 concerning the Freedom to Express Opinion in Public, everyone should request for permit from the police to conduct demonstrations at least three days prior to the demonstration. Any demonstrations which are conducted without the police’s permit, therefore, considered to be illegal by the police who have the authority to disperse them. In some instances, however, requests for demonstration permit to the police were not properly responded.

In dispersing demonstration conducted without permit, the police are not allowed to take excessive measures. According to The Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 16 Year 2006 concerning Guidance on Mass Control, the police are prohibited to use live ammunitions when dealing with peaceful protests. Furthermore, the Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on The Use of Force establishes that live ammunitions should be used only to stop any activities which pose severe injury or death to the police or the public. Article 7 of the Regulation establishes that such activities are, for instance, the arson of gas station or electric poles as well as the explosion of an armoury. For activities other than these, the police are only allowed to use force without weapons or chemical sprays, such as tear gas and chilli spray, as well as non-sharp objects.

Despite such prohibitions, however, the police was able to use live ammunition against protesters because there is hardly judicial measures taken against those who use the ammunition arbitrarily.

International human rights law also sets out that police shall use force only when it is strictly necessary. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, for instance, emphasizes that force and firearms shall be used only ‘if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.’

Article 17 of the Indonesian Law No. 34 Year 2004 on Indonesian Military sets out that the authority to deploy the military is in the President who should seek the consent of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR). Only in emergency situation the President is allowed to set aside the requirement on the DPR’s consent yet even in such case, the President has to report the deployment to DPR within 48 hours.

The legal basis of the President to deploy military forces in Papua is questionable as the DPR has never given its consent on the deployment of military power in Papua. In fact, following his meeting with the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and KontraS, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence in 2011, the DPR’s 1st Commission Deputy Chairman, TB Hassanudin, criticised the deployment of military in Papua and the lack of transparency in it. He was not aware of any consent given by the DPR for the deployment of military in Papua and pointed out that the DPR has never been given any reports concerning the number of the troops and the use of financial resources to fund the military operation.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write and urge the listed authorities below to ensure an impartial and effective investigation on the shooting to take place. Those who are responsible for the deaths of the protesters should be adequately punished and the victims and their family should also be given adequate reparation. Please also urge the relevant authorities within the list to release the protesters and to review the deployment of military power in Papua. The Indonesian Law No. 8 Year 1998 on the Freedom to Express Opinion should also be reviewed so it provides more safeguards that can prevent arbitrary rejections by the police to the submitted demonstration permit requests.

The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of expression and the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions asking for their intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:


SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

INDONESIA: Three Papuans engaged in peaceful demonstration were killed allegedly by security officers while 45 others were arrested

Name of shot victims: Panuel Tablo, Yesa Mirin, Tanius Kalakmabin
Number of arrested persons: 45 (information on identity is unavailable)
Names of alleged perpetrators: Officers from Jayapura District Police, Sentani District Police Station, Indonesian Military
Date of incident: 4 June 2012
Place of incident: Sentani, Jayapura

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the shooting, use of excessive force and extrajudicial killings by security officers against peaceful protesters took place in Sentani, Jayapura, on 4 June 2012 which resulted in the death of Panuel Tablo and Yesa Mirin. I have been told another person named Tanius Kalakmabin has also allegedly died during the protest dispersal by security officers. I was informed that three of them are activists of West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Pembebasan Papua, KNPB) who were going to conduct a peaceful demonstration in front of the local autonomy parliament (DPRP) office in Abepura.

I received the information from the local activists that, the protesters were marching from Jalan Sosial and Pos Tujuh to Kampung Harapan to pick up more protesters before they continued their journey to Abepura. At Kampung Harapan, they were stopped by the police who asked them to disperse themselves as the protesters do not have any permit from the police to conduct a demonstration as required by Law No. 9 Year 1998 concerning the Freedom to Express Opinion in Public. The request and warning of the police were ignored by the protesters who later continued their march to Abepura. They claimed they have requested for a permit in accordance with the law but the permit has never been issued by the Papua Regional Police. I am concerned with the fact that the police can arbitrarily disregard or reject a request for demonstration permit as happened in this case.

As the protesters reached Telaga Maya, they were surrounded by security officers allegedly from Jayapura District Police, Sentani Sub-District Police, and the Indonesian Military. The officers were armed and the protesters were also surrounded by transport trucks and armoured vehicles of the officers which made it difficult for them to move anywhere. The coordinator of the demonstration, Agus Kossay, later announced to the protesters to leave and return home. The protesters later marching back home and they were followed by the security officers. At Kampung Harapan, the protesters would like to take a rest but the security officers did not allow them to. The officers opened fire to scare the protesters off so that they will disperse themselves yet the shooting, instead, has triggered chaos. The security officers started shooting randomly towards the protesters that Yesa Mirin and Panuel Tablo were shot to death. The protesters were also beaten by the security officers. Another protester, Tanius Kalakmabin, also allegedly died in the incident yet the cause of his death is still unclear to date.

I was also told that 45 protesters were arrested and brought to Sentani Sub-District Police Station. Some protesters tried to save themselves by hiding in the forest and the lake for hours.

Under the current Indonesian law, a permit from the police is needed for a ‘legal’ demonstration to be conducted and the failure to meet such requirement will result in the dispersal of the demonstration. However, in this case, the protesters have met the requirements established by the law but the Papua Regional Police did not issue the permit as it was supposed to. In fact, even if the protesters did not meet the requirements, I am of the view that the police or any other security officers should not use excessive power, especially lethal weapons, to disperse the demonstration when it is conducted peacefully. I am aware that even The Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 16 Year 2006 regarding Guidance on Mass Control prohibits the police to use live ammunitions when dealing with peaceful protests. This is reaffirmed under the Chief of the Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on the Use of Force which establishes that live ammunitions should only be used to stop activities that pose injury and death threat to the police or public. Situation that amount to such criteria, for instance, is where the persons who perform the activities are armed. Article 7 of the Regulation uses the arson of gas station or electric poles as well as the explosion of armoury as examples of activities that pose injury and death threat to the public. As far as I am concerned, the protesters in this case did not do anything which amount to any of those that the using of lethal weapon to disperse them is illegitimate, unlawful, disproportionate and unnecessary.

In this opportunity, I would like to question the deployment of military forces in Papua region. Indonesian Law No. 34 Year 2004 regarding Indonesian Military establishes that authority to deploy military forces is in the hand of the President who should seek the consent of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR). In times of emergency, the President might be justified not to ask for the consent of the DPR so long as he/she reports such deployment to DPR within 48 hours. I would like to bring to your attention to the unclarity of legal basis of military power deployment in Papua as the DPR has never given its consent for such thing to take place, as rightly pointed out by DPR’s 1st Commission Deputy Chairman, TB Hassanudin, last year. According to Mr. Hassanudin, the DPR has never been given any reports concerning the number of troops deployed and the use of financial resources to fund the military operation in Papua that the transparency of military deployment in this particular region is questionable.

Considering all of this, I am urging you to take the necessary steps to ensure an impartial and effective investigation on the shooting to take place and the victims’ family to be given adequate reparation. I am calling you to bring those who are responsible for the killings to be brought to justice and the arrested persons to be released. Should there are any allegations that the arrested persons have violated the laws, they should be treated humanely and their rights should be guaranteed in any instances. Equally important, I am also urging you to withdraw the military personnel deployed in Papua and to review the Law No. 8 Year 1998 concerning the Freedom to Express Opinion in Public so that it provides more safeguards to prevent arbitrary rejection by the police to the requests for demonstration permit.

I am looking forward to your swift and adequate response in this matter.


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. Laksamana Agus Suhartono
Military Commander in Chief
Mabes TNI, Cilangkap
Jakarta 13870
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 8459 1244, 8459 1243
Fax: +62 21 845 6805

5. Drs. Mahfudz Siddiq
Chairman of the 1st Commission of the DPR
Gedung Nusantara II DPR RI
Lt. I, Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto
Jakarta
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 571 5581, 571 5518
Fax: +62 21 571 5523
E-mail: set_komisi1@dpr.go.id

6. 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-113-2012
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.