Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDONESIA: Policeman arbitrarily shoots and injures man in Yogyakarta

INDONESIA: Policeman arbitrarily shoots and injures man in Yogyakarta

November 6, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

6 November 2007  
------------------------------------
UA-317-2007: INDONESIA: Policeman arbitrarily shoots and injures man in Yogyakarta

INDONESIA: Arbitrary use of arms; police brutality; impunity
------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a policeman arbitrarily shot and injured a man on 9 October 2007 in Kaliurang, Yogyakarta. The policeman did not identify himself and did not provide assistance and medical aid to the injured immediately after the shooting. It is reported that the policeman attempted to justify the use of arms by fabricating reasons.

CASE DETAILS:

On 9 October 2007 around midnight, Martholomeus Suryadi, returned to his flat in Kaliurang, near Yogyakarta, after fishing with his friends and went out again to pick up his friend, Dewi. He was riding a motorcycle belonging to his friend, Dini, and carrying his bag of fishing tools.

According to information received, between 1:30 and 2:30 am, Martholomeus Suryadi was stopped on his way by a man in civilian clothing in front of Shangrillla Garden, Jl. Yogya-Solo. The man claimed he was from Sleman Resort Police and asked Martholomeus to show his identity card, driving license as well as the registration and ownership book of the motorcycle. However, Martholomeus was not sure whether he was a policeman because police rarely ask for the vehicle ownership book. Martholomeus showed only the registration and his identity card.

After checking the registration book, the policeman said, "this registration has already expired two years ago. Whose moto is this?" Then, they debated for a while regarding the expired registration and suddenly the policeman raised his tone. He phoned someone saying, "Sir, I have caught a stolen motorcycle, and the thief." Martholomeus had doubts as to whether he was really calling his colleague or it was just a trick. Martholomeus then phoned a friend of his, seeking help, but the man yelled at Martholomeus and told him to end the call, saying, "my business is with you, not with your friend."

Martholomeus then asked him to show his police identity card. The policeman then became nervous and replied, "I am a policeman! You don't believe who I am?!" Then, he showed two sheets of red colour folio paper with police letterhead and a signature. But he did not mention his name, nor which unit he belonged to. He also did not show his police identity card.

Then the policeman asked in a loud voice, "what is it in your bag?" Discovering a knife inside the bag, he accused Martholomeus of killing someone. But Martholomeus said the knife was used for fishing. The policeman then grabbed the knife and pointed it at Martholomeus, as if wanting to stab him. The man continued to search the bag and found a cell phone. But Martholomeus managed to grab it first. He also took his wallet from the bag, but the policeman snatched it back. Martholomeus then felt convinced the man was not a real policeman, but a robber.

He tried to run away, but the policeman held on to him. Martholomeus succeeded in escaping from him and kept running. The policeman told him to stop or he would shoot. A few seconds later, Martholomeus heard a clicking sound and when he looked back, he saw that the policeman was holding a gun pointed at him. He shot Martholomeus once from a distance of three to four meters. The bullet went through his buttocks and he fell down. The policeman swore at Martholomeus and let him lie on the ground for about 15 minutes.

The policeman then called out to a colleague. It then became known that the policeman who shot Matholomeus was Police Brigadier Agus Sunanto. Soon two more policeman arrived on the scene. He ordered Martholomeus to keep silent and told the others, "I shot the thief here. He was trying to grab the knife from me and trying to harm me, therefore I shot him." Martholomeus was then taken to the Bhayangkara Hospital (a police hospital) in a motorcycle by two policemen. Once they arrived there, Martholomeus was made to lie down in the yard for about 10 minutes, and only later was he taken inside.

Martholomeus spent two days at the Bhayangkara Hospital. He requested to be moved to another hospital because he did not feel comfortable in the police hospital. He was removed to the Dr. Sardjito Hospital, a government facility in Yogyakarta where he stayed for five days. Martholomeus is under the surveillance of the Disciplinary Unit of Sleman Sector Police.

The AHRC is concerned over the arbitrary use of arms and the lack of respect for due process in arresting a person by the law enforcement officials. The case indicates how easily the law enforcement officials take recourse to arms even when the situation did not warrant the use of arms. In addition, police have to disclose their identity when apprehending a person following due process but in this case that was not done. After the shooting, the policeman sought to justify the use of arms by fabricating reasons.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The law enforcement officials have to use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. The use of firearms is one of methods of use of force and it should be considered as the last resort. However, the police in this case just shot Martholomeus despite the fact that there were other methods of dealing with him. After the shooting, the policeman also tried to justify the use of arms by fabricating reasons.

The AHRC has reported other similar cases of use of firearms by law enforcement officials. On July 2007, a law enforcement official shot a villager with the reasoning that the villager was trying to escape. See further: UA-217-2007. In another case, a farmer was brutally gunned down in Central Java for a similar reason. See further UA-354-2006.

In this context, the AHRC notes that the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials contain the following two provisions:

"Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law."

"Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles."

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities listed below expressing your grave concern regarding the shooting of the Indonesian man by a policeman. The authorities must exhaust all means to ensure that a conclusive investigation is conducted to guarantee that the perpetrator is effectively prosecuted. Please urge them to investigate the case without delay. The victim's family must also be afforded appropriate compensation.
To support this appeal, please click here: 

Suggested letter:

Dear __________,

INDONESIA: A policeman arbitrarily shot and injured a young man in Yogyakarta

Name of the victim: Martholomeus Suryadi, 21 years old, resident of Kaliurang, Yogayakarta
Name of alleged perpetrator: Brigadier Agus Sunanto, attached to Criminal Investigation Division of Sleman Resort Police, Yogyakarta
Date of incident: 9 October 2007
Place of incident: In front of Shangrilla Garden, Jl. Yogya-Solo, Yogyakarta

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the case of a policeman who arbitrarily shot and injured a young man in Kaliurang, Yogyakarta.

According to information received, on 9 October 2007, when Martholomeus Suryadi was riding a motorcycle on his way to pick up his friend after going fishing, he was stopped by a man named Agus Sunanto, a brigadier from Sleman Resort Police in front of Shangrilla Garden, Jl. Yogya-Solo, Yogyakarta.

I am also informed that the policeman wore civilian clothes and failed to show his police identity card when asked. The victim therefore thought he was facing a robber, rather than a policeman. 

Suddenly the policeman grabbed his bag and took a fishing-knife from it and pointed it at the victim as if he wanted to stab him. The victim was afraid and started to run, but the policeman warned him not to run or he would shoot. A few seconds later, the policeman shot the victim at close range, roughly three to four meters.

I am also informed that after the incident, the victim was left to lie on the ground for around 15 minutes on the spot and later, after being taken to a police hospital, for another 10 minutes in the yard before he received treatment. Based on the Indonesian Criminal Code, the policeman can be indicted under Article 351, regarding maltreatment, with a maximum punishment of two years and eight months imprisonment.

I also informed that the policeman, brigadier Agus Sunanto was investigated by the Propam Division of the Sleman Resort Police. But it is reported that the investigation is only for disciplinary purpose.

I take this opportunity to draw your attention to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. It clearly indicates that if "law enforcement officials use firearms against person, in order to prevent his escape, law enforcement official shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms." It also adds that the law enforcement officials should ensure that assistance and medical aid be rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment.

In addition to the provisions mentioned above, most importantly, the government has the responsibility to ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under the law and exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.

In the light of the above, I urge you to take not only disciplinary action against those responsible but also legal action as this case is purely a criminal act. Such legal action should be conducted through impartial and thorough investigation. The victim must be provided adequate compensation as well. I further demand that the government of Indonesia ensure that all law enforcement officials have appropriate moral, psychological and physical qualities for the effective exercise of their functions and receive continuous and thorough professional training.

I earnestly look forward to your prompt and effective response in this matter.

Yours sincerely,


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

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudoyono
President
Republic of Indonesia
Presidential Palace
Jl. Medan Merdeka Utara
Jakarta Pusat 10010
INDONESIA
Tel: + 62 21 3845627 ext 1003
Fax: + 62 21 231 41 38, 345 2685, 345 7782

2. Mr. Hendarman Supandji
Attorney General
Kejaksaan Agung RI
Jl. Sultan Hasanuddin No. 1
Jakarta Selatan
INDONESIA
Tel: + 62 21 7221337, 7397602
Fax: + 62 21 7250213

3. Gen. Sutanto
Chief of National Police
Jl. Trunojoyo No. 3
Jakarta Selatan
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 721 8012
Fax: +62 21 720 7277

4. Mr. Ifdhal Kasim
Chairperson
KOMNAS HAM (National Human Rights Commission)
Jl. Latuharhary No. 4B Menteng
Jakarta Pusat 10310
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 3925230
Fax: +62 21 3151042/3925227

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-317-2007
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.