Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

September 15, 2011

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-041-2011



15 September 2011

[RE: AHRC-UAC-117-2011: Police ill-treats peaceful protesters and forces rebellion charges in a flawed process]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

ISSUES: Freedom of expression; right to fair trial
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Manokwari district court in West Papua has sentenced two peaceful activists to seven and a half months and two years imprisonment respectively. The trial was characterised by a series of violations of the Indonesian criminal procedure and appeared to be politicised and biased. The victims had participated in a peaceful protest in December 2010. The Manokwari Court ignored several basic rights of the accused and the verdict was given despite the lack of sufficient evidence. Five more victims are still undergoing their trial process.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 14 December 2010, seven persons were charged with rebellion after they conducted a peaceful protest following a flag raising event. At the correctional facility, they were ill-treated and denied medical care for weeks resulting in serious health conditions. The AHRC issued this urgent appeal regarding their case.

The AHRC has now received information from LP3BH, a local legal aid group in Manokwari that the judges panel led by Cita Savitri, issued the verdict that two of the peaceful protesters, Melki Bleskadit (also known as Melkianus Bleskadit) and Daniel Yenu, were guilty of acts of rebellion, while the other accused are still undergoing the trial process. (photos:Daniel Yenu (left) and Melki Bleskadit (right) in court, source:LP3BH)

On 18 August 2011, the verdict against Mr. Bleskadit was declared and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The AHRC also learned that the verdicts were declared based on flawed testimonies. At the trial of both victims, no witnesses to the alleged crime were presented and the judges declared a testimony from a person who had not seen, heard or experienced the incident as sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. According to article 1.26 and 1.27 of the Indonesian criminal procedure law (Law 8/1981) such a person is not permitted to be a witness in a trial. Responding to the two year sentence, the public prosecutor, Mudeng Sumaila submitted an appeal, demanding a higher sentence of five years. (photo: public prosecutor at Yenu's trial source:LP3BH)

On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was convicted to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. At Mr. Yenu's trial, the judge also convicted the suspect in a trial based on flawed procedure. For example, according to the victim's lawyer the prosecutor successfully present fabricated evidence such as a megaphone that was not actually used by Mr. Yenu. On 16 August 2011, the judge forced Mr. Yenu to appear before the court trial session without access to his lawyer.

On 19 August 2011, the judges refused the request of Mr. Yenu's legal counsel to submit the plea to the court, although the Indonesia's criminal code in article 182.1b entitles the suspect to submit such a plea.

The AHRC is very concerned that local authorities in West Papua frequently apply rebellion charges to peaceful Papuan activists and sentence them in flawed processes that lack proper evidence. The Police, prosecution and judges have thus shown serious disregard for the basic criminal procedure standards and fundamental principles of rule of law. The verdict in this case appears to be quite blatantly fabricated. The AHRC deplores the dysfunction and apparent politicisation of courts in West Papua as this leaves people without access to the law-based and impartial justice mechanisms, they are entitled to. (photo: judges at Yenu's trial, source:LP3BH)

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please join us in writing to the authorities listed below, asking them to thoroughly review and examine the trial process against Mr. Bleskadit and. Mr. Yenu and to review the criminal code application against the peaceful expression of opinion.

Please be informed that the AHRC is sending letters on this case to the and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers calling for their interventions.

To support this appeal, please click here:


SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

INDONESIA: Manokwari court sentences two Papuan activists in flawed trial

Name of victim: Melki Bleskadit, Daniel Yenu
Names of alleged perpetrators: The examining judges, Cita Savitri, I Gusti Ngurah Taruna W and Helmin Somalay
Date of incident: August 2011
Place of incident: Manokwari District Court

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the verdict against two Papuan activists, who were sentenced to imprisonment for conducting a peaceful protest in December 2010.

I know that on 14 December 2010, seven persons were charged with rebellion after they conducted a peaceful protest following a flag raising event. At the correctional facility, they were ill-treated and denied medical care for weeks resulting in serious health conditions.

I have receive information that the judges panel led by Cita Savitri, declared the verdict that two of the peaceful protesters, Melki Bleskadit and Daniel Yenu, were guilty for acts of rebellion, while the other five victims are still undergoing their trial process.

On 18 August 2011, the verdict against Mr. Bleskadit was declared and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The AHRC also learned that the verdicts were declared based on flawed testimonies. At the trial of both victims, no witnesses of the alleged crime were presented and the judges declared a testimony from a person who had not seen, heard or experienced the incident as sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. According to article 1.26 and 1.27 of the Indonesian criminal procedure law (Law 8/1981) such a person is not permitted as a witness in trials. Responding to the two year sentence, the public prosecutor, Mudeng Sumaila submitted an appeal, demanding a higher sentence of five years.

On 23 August 2011, Mr. Yenu was convicted to seven months and 16 days imprisonment. At Mr. Yenu's trial, the judge also convicted the suspect in a trial based on flawed procedure. For example, according to the victim's lawyer the prosecutor successfully present fabricated evidence such as a megaphone that was not actually used by Mr. Yenu. On 16 August 2011, the judge forced Mr. Yenu to appear before the court trial session without access to his lawyer.

I learned that on 19 August 2011, the judges refused the request of Mr. Yenu's legal counsel to submit the plea to the court, although the Indonesia's criminal code in article 182.1b entitles the suspect to submit a plea to the court.

I am very disturbed to hear that local authorities in West Papua frequently apply rebellion charges to peaceful Papuan activists and sentence them in flawed processes that lack proper evidence. The police, prosecution and judges have thus shown serious disregard for the basic criminal procedure standards and fundamental principles of rule of law in this case. The verdict appears to be fabricated and I am very concerned about the impartiality of the local courts and their disregard for Indonesian criminal procedure.

Therefore, I urge you to review and examine the trial process of both victims. The authorities concerned should look into the victim's allegations of procedural failures in the local institutions and the ongoing lack of intervention – as far as I am aware - following the victims earlier complaints. The principle of fair trial as required by international and national law must be applied in the appeal's process in the case of Mr. Bleskadit, Mr. Yenu and the ongoing trials of the other five accused.


Yours sincerely,

----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
The President of Indonesia
Jl. Veteran No. 16
Jakarta Pusat
Indonesia
Phone : +62 21 3863777, 3503088.
Fax : +62 21 3442223

2. Head of National Commission on Human Rights of Indonesia
Jalan Latuharhary No.4-B,
Jakarta 10310
Indonesia
Phone: +62 21 392 5227-30
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
Email : info@komnas.go.id

3. Office of The Anti Judicial Mafia Task Force (Satgas)
PO Box 9949
Jakarta 10 000
INDONESIA
Contact on website: http://www.satgas-pmh.go.id/?q=node/157

4. Chief Justice of the Republic of Indonesia
Mahkamah Agung
Jalan Medan Merdeka Utara No.9-13, Jakarta 10110
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 21 3843557 -3453348
Fax: +62 21 383541

5. Chairman of Judicial Commission
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia
Jl. Kramat Raya No. 57, Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 21 3905455;
Fax: +62 21 3905455;
Email: kyri@komisiyudisial.go.id

6. Head of Manokwari District Court
Jl. Merdeka No. 69
Nabire, Jayapura 98815
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 984 21007
Fax: +62 984 24087

7. Head of Jayapura High Court
Jl. Tanjung Ria No. 98. Base “G”
Jayapura 99117
INDONESIA
Phone: +62 967 541045, 541443, 541248
Fax: +62 967 541045


Yours sincerely,


Thank you.

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



 

 

 


Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
AHRC-UAU-041-2011
Countries :
Issues :
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.