1) Human rights recommendations
for Indonesia
2) Wilmar’s New ‘No Deforestation, No
Peat, No Exploitation’ Policy: What will it mean in Merauke?
3) Indonesia: Fear for the safety of Mr.
Yohanes Boseren, arbitrarily detained and in poor health following
ill-treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Human rights recommendations for Indonesia
Nukila Evanty, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, December 11 2013, 11:36 AM
Indonesia received 180 recommendations when it was reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meeting on 23 May 2012 in Geneva.
The UPR is a mechanism by which the UNHRC observes the promotion and protection of human rights in each UN member state. The mechanism on human rights applies equally to all UN member states without exception and is based on objective information on the fulfillment of human rights commitments by each state. This UPR review is the second cycle for Indonesia after being reviewed in April 2008.
The review, which highlights the challenges of human rights in Indonesia and the human rights responsibility of the government, is relevant as the world commemorated Human Rights Day on Tuesday.
Torture, which is rampantly practiced by state agencies, tops the number of recommendations, in which the UN member states asked Indonesia to amend the Criminal Code to include torture as a crime as stipulated in the Convention against Torture, Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment which Indonesia has ratified. Torture was a crucial issue that Indonesia had to address as recommended by UN special rapporteur Manfred Nowak, who visited the country in 2007.
Indonesia received 20 recommendations, the second highest number, regarding freedom of religion and beliefs and the increasing incidents of mob violence involving hard-line Islamist groups against religious minorities in Java and Sumatra. These acts of violence rose from 135 in 2007 to 216 in 2010 and 244 in 2011. The recommendations called for revision of national laws that are deemed discriminatory.
The third highest number of recommendations concerned freedom of political expression in Papua, including the lack of access by foreign media there. The recommendations called for full access to relevant international human rights and humanitarian actors and foreign journalists. On the issue of Papua, 13 delegations questioned repeated shooting incidents and violence targeting civilians. They perceived the Indonesian government as being “too much aware and suspicious” of the separatist movement in Papua.
Human rights activists and groups have recommended that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono hold a dialogue with the people of Papua. But the President seems to have opted for the establishment of the Unit for Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B).
The fourth highest number of recommendations highlights the state’s failure to end impunity. It calls on the government to amend laws sensitive to human rights, reform the security sector through education and enhance national capacity to maintain security and enforce the law.
What is the importance of the 180 recommendations for Indonesia?
First and foremost Indonesia should follow up on the UPR recommendations for the coming four years. Secondly, it needs to measure its commitment to human rights protection. Third, it has to identify impediments to coordination among ministries related to human rights promotion.
No less pressing is coordination between the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and other ministries, and the national commissions on human rights to promote the recommendation of UPR 2012 to relevant stakeholders, civil society, non-governmental organizations and academics.
At least two recommendations from the UPR have been implemented recently through ratification of the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography.
More comprehensive measures should be adopted by the government to credibly address the human rights situation as stated in the UPR recommendations. First, Indonesia needs to use the mechanism to publicize and familiarize the public with the UPR recommendations and the efforts it has been taking related to human rights. Second, the Law and Human Rights Ministry needs to cooperate with various stakeholders at the national and provincial levels to address the gap between policy and practice. Third, the government should involve civil society groups to work with it in implementing the accepted recommendations.
To mark Human Rights Day let us strengthen our respect for human rights and exercise our right to learn about the UPR recommendations and how they are implemented.
The writer is a fellow with the Abo Academy for Human Rights, Finland and human rights adviser for RIGHTS Foundation.
The UPR is a mechanism by which the UNHRC observes the promotion and protection of human rights in each UN member state. The mechanism on human rights applies equally to all UN member states without exception and is based on objective information on the fulfillment of human rights commitments by each state. This UPR review is the second cycle for Indonesia after being reviewed in April 2008.
The review, which highlights the challenges of human rights in Indonesia and the human rights responsibility of the government, is relevant as the world commemorated Human Rights Day on Tuesday.
Torture, which is rampantly practiced by state agencies, tops the number of recommendations, in which the UN member states asked Indonesia to amend the Criminal Code to include torture as a crime as stipulated in the Convention against Torture, Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment which Indonesia has ratified. Torture was a crucial issue that Indonesia had to address as recommended by UN special rapporteur Manfred Nowak, who visited the country in 2007.
Indonesia received 20 recommendations, the second highest number, regarding freedom of religion and beliefs and the increasing incidents of mob violence involving hard-line Islamist groups against religious minorities in Java and Sumatra. These acts of violence rose from 135 in 2007 to 216 in 2010 and 244 in 2011. The recommendations called for revision of national laws that are deemed discriminatory.
The third highest number of recommendations concerned freedom of political expression in Papua, including the lack of access by foreign media there. The recommendations called for full access to relevant international human rights and humanitarian actors and foreign journalists. On the issue of Papua, 13 delegations questioned repeated shooting incidents and violence targeting civilians. They perceived the Indonesian government as being “too much aware and suspicious” of the separatist movement in Papua.
Human rights activists and groups have recommended that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono hold a dialogue with the people of Papua. But the President seems to have opted for the establishment of the Unit for Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B).
The fourth highest number of recommendations highlights the state’s failure to end impunity. It calls on the government to amend laws sensitive to human rights, reform the security sector through education and enhance national capacity to maintain security and enforce the law.
What is the importance of the 180 recommendations for Indonesia?
First and foremost Indonesia should follow up on the UPR recommendations for the coming four years. Secondly, it needs to measure its commitment to human rights protection. Third, it has to identify impediments to coordination among ministries related to human rights promotion.
No less pressing is coordination between the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and other ministries, and the national commissions on human rights to promote the recommendation of UPR 2012 to relevant stakeholders, civil society, non-governmental organizations and academics.
At least two recommendations from the UPR have been implemented recently through ratification of the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography.
More comprehensive measures should be adopted by the government to credibly address the human rights situation as stated in the UPR recommendations. First, Indonesia needs to use the mechanism to publicize and familiarize the public with the UPR recommendations and the efforts it has been taking related to human rights. Second, the Law and Human Rights Ministry needs to cooperate with various stakeholders at the national and provincial levels to address the gap between policy and practice. Third, the government should involve civil society groups to work with it in implementing the accepted recommendations.
To mark Human Rights Day let us strengthen our respect for human rights and exercise our right to learn about the UPR recommendations and how they are implemented.
The writer is a fellow with the Abo Academy for Human Rights, Finland and human rights adviser for RIGHTS Foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Wilmar’s New ‘No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation’ Policy: What will it mean in Merauke?
On 5th December, Wilmar International, one of Asia’s biggest agribusiness corporations and the world’s biggest palm oil trader, announced a broad new environmental and social policy, including a commitment to no deforestation and the principle of Free, Prior Informed Consent when dealing with indigenous communities.
As these new ethical criteria would apply not only to Wilmar’s own plantations but also other companies who supply the palm oil, sugar and soy that Wilmar trades, it would seem that this pledge might have a big effect on the plantation industry’s environmental record – especially for palm oil where Wilmar controls 45% of world trade.
The question is, will it be implemented? This new policy was launched at the same time as a deal between Wilmar and food and household products giant Unilever, which has its own target to only use traceable palm oil by the end of 2014. As more multinationals come under pressure to use less environmentally-damaging ingredients, the commercial benefits to Wilmar of appearing to be an environmental leader are clear.
However the company has frequently been accused of violating ethical standards that is has signed up to in the past – for example as a member of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and recipient of funding from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation(IFC). That means many groups with experience of the company’s track record are sceptical about this new commitment.
PT Anugerah Rejeki Nusantara: a test of whether the new policy is serious.
In West Papua Wilmar has plans for two 40,000 hectare sugar-cane plantations in Merauke and two more in neighbouring Mappi regency, and these could be a key test for the company’s new policy. If these plantations for ahead, they will clearly contravene the ethical standards. Let’s take a look at the situation with PT Anugerah Rejeki Nusantara (PT ARN), one of those plantations:
- No deforestation. Wilmar has committed to end deforestation in High Carbon Stock and High Conservation Value forest. The definition is quite broad and includes most forest that has not been cleared within the last ten years. PT ARN’s concession is an ecologically-rich area, largely forested, with some grassland and swamps.
- No peat. Wilmar says it will not start plantations on peat of any depth. Data from Wetlands International shows intermittent shallow and medium peat within PT ARN’s concession.
- Respect the rights of local and indigenous people to give or withhold their Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC). PT ARN has been trying to convince communities in the area to hand over their land for two years now, but many people are still determinedly opposed. A recent study in four villages affected by PT ARN revealed that the company was falling far short of FPIC principles. Where people have clearly not consented, the company keeps making its approaches, until the community feels it really has no choice. Often Wilmar only speaks with community and clan leaders individually, which was causing the seeds of conflict within the village. Security forces brought to discussions also have an intimidating effect. There are other tools of deception too – in one village PT ARN’s Public Relations Manager even pretended to be a priest to get the people’s support.
Wilmar’s policy covers a number of other areas, such as workers’ rights and dealing with land conflict. The full text can be read here.
What about the Ganda Group?
Wilmar commits itself to stop deforestation and development on peat immediately, and will not start buying from any suppliers who are deforesting or developing peat. Existing suppliers have until the end of 2015 to comply. Of particular interest is to see how this will affect the Ganda Group (Agro Mandiri Semesta Plantations), a palm oil company which sells its produce to Wilmar.
Wilmar has a special relationship with Ganda Group, which is owned by Ganda Sitorus, the younger brother of Wilmar founder Martua Sitorus. In recent years the Ganda Group have taken over plantations which do not meet Wilmar’s previous ethical commitments to the RSPO and IFC. The most notorious case is in Jambi, Sumatra, where after going through the motions of two years of IFC-facilitated mediation to resolve a land conflict with the indigenous Suku Anak Dalam Batin Sembilan, Wilmar suddenly sold it’s subsidiary PT Asiatic Persada to the Ganda Group, rather than abide by any agreements produced by that mediation. On Saturday 7th December, the Ganda Group once again violently evicted Suku Anak Dalam communities which had reoccupied their ancestral land in the plantation.
The Ganda Group also has plans for two plantations in Merauke: PT Agrinusa Persada Mulia and PT Agriprima Cipta Persada. These companies are also accused of deceiving local villagers and paying shockingly low compensation rates, as well as clearing forest for an oil palm nursery before receiving a plantation permit. The plantations, which also involve clearing natural forest, would clearly not meet the RSPO standards which Wilmar has signed up to in its bid to be seen as a responsible company, but the Ganda Group is unencumbered by such commitments.
However now Wilmar’s policy states that it it won’t be buying from companies that are clearing forests. Does that mean the Ganda Group are going to have to look elsewhere to sell their tainted palm oil?
AwasMIFEE wrote to Wilmar on 6th December to ask whether its new ethical policy would mean that it would be cancelling its plans in Merauke. No response was received by the time this article was published.
This entry was posted in Merauke News, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Indonesia: Fear for the safety of Mr. Yohanes Boseren, arbitrarily detained and in poor health following ill-treatment
-------------
http://www.omct.org/urgent-campaigns/urgent-interventions/indonesia/2013/12/d22503/
Indonesia: Fear for the safety of Mr. Yohanes Boseren, arbitrarily detained and in poor health following ill-treatment
IDN 091213
Arbitrary detention/ Torture in police custody/ Lack of medical treatment/ Poor health/ Fear for safety/ Risk of impunity
The International Secretariat of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) requests your URGENT intervention in the following situation in Indonesia.
Brief description of the situation
The International Secretariat of OMCT has been informed by TAPOL, a member organisation of OMCT SOS-Torture Network, about the arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of Mr. Yohanes Boseren a 20-year-old man. OMCT has also been informed about his poor health resulting from the ill-treatment he suffered under arrest and the lack of adequate medical treatment.
According to the information received, on 1 May 2013 Mr. Yohanes Boseren was arrested with five other men, Oktovianus Warnares, Yoseph Arwakon, Markus Sawias, George Syors Simyapen and Jantje Wamaer during a peaceful flag-raising ceremony in Biak to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the administrative transfer of Papua to Indonesia in 1963. They were detained in Biak prison facing charges of treason under Article 106[1] of the Indonesian Criminal Code and possession of ammunitions and explosives under the Emergency Law 12/1951. Local reports indicate that the police fabricated evidence consisting of bullets and home-made bombs in order to charge them with these crimes.
According to the same information received, Mr. Yohanes Boseren was severely beaten under arrest causing him a traumatic head injury. On 14 November 2013, Mr. Yohanes Boseren was brought to Abepura Mental Health Hospital, where he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a form of organic mental disorder due to the beatings he had suffered during his arrest. However, he was returned to Biak prison two days later.
Mr. Yohanes Boseren’s trial has been temporarly suspended due to his condition. The Public Prosecutor reportedly stated during the hearing that they would coordinate between the prison authorities and doctors at Abepura Mental Health Hospital to provide medial supplies for Mr. Yohanes Borseren. His lawyers have submitted an appeal for consideration, reasoning that Mr. Borseren should be released from prison and given treatment at Abepura Mental Health Hospital due to the limited medical facilities in Biak prison to which the judge reportedly agreed. However, at the moment of issuing this urgent appeal, Mr. Yohanes Boseren was still detained in Biak prison.
The International Secretariat of OMCT expresses its deep concern about the safety and physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Yohanes Boseren and urges the competent authorities to guarantee his safety at all times by immediately transferring him to Abepura Mental Health Hospital where he can receive adequate medical care.
OMCT recalls that Indonesia is legally bound to effectively ensure the physical and psychological integrity of all persons deprived of liberty in accordance with international human rights law, and in particular the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
Furthermore, OMCT urges the competent authorities to carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent andimpartial investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest, in accordance with international human rights standards, the result of which must be made public, in order to bring those responsible before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and apply penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions as provided by law.
OMCT also urges the Indonesian authorities to amend the Indonesian Criminal Code to ensure that no one is prosecuted for treason for exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression protected under the Indonesian constitution and international law.
In this regard, OMCT recalls the concluding observations formulated to Indonesia by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2013, notably the following one:
“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.”(CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1 para 28)
Action requested
Please write to the authorities in Indonesia urging them to:
i. Guarantee, in all circumstances, the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Yohanes Boseren as well as of Mr. Oktavianus Warnares, Mr. Yoseph Arwakon, Mr. Markus Sawias, Mr. George Syors Simyapen and Mr. Jantje Wamaer;
ii. Order the immediate transfer of Mr. Yohanes Boseren to a public hospital with adequate medical care;
iii. Order their immediate release since their arrests appear to be solely based on the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly;
iv. Carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture, in accordance with international human rights standards, the result of which must be made public, in orderto bring those responsible before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and apply penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions as provided by law;
v. Ensure that adequate, effective and prompt reparation, including adequate compensation and rehabilitation, is granted to Mr. Yohanes Boseren;
vi. Ensure the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the country in accordance with national laws and international human rights standards, in particular ensure that all acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are clearly defined in law as offences in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 1, 4 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and that they be made punishable with appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of the crimes as required.
Addresses
Ø Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Republic of Indonesia, Jl. Veteran No. 16, Jakarta Pusat, INDONESIA, Tel: +62 21 386 3777, 350 3088. , Fax: + 62 21 344 2223, 3483 4759, E-mail: presiden@ri.go.id
Ø Pengadilan Negeri Biak, Biak State Court, JI. Majapahit No. 1, Biak 98117, Papua, Indonesia Tel +62 (0) 981 21847, Fax +62 (0) 981 21958
Ø Kejaksaan Negeri Biak, Biak State Prosecutor Jl. Sisingamangaraja, Biak, Papua, Indonesia, Tel +62 (0) 981 21079
Ø Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Biak, Biak Prison Jl Condronegoro Samofa, Biak, Tel +62 (0) 981 25715
Ø Mr. Amir Syamsuddin, Minister for Justice and Human Rights, Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav No. 4-5 Kuningan Jakarta Selatan 12950, Indonesia, Tel +62 (0) 21 5252975, Fax +62 (0) 21 5252975
Ø Ketua Mahkamah Agung, Chair of the High Court Republik Indonesia Jl. Medan Merdeka Utara No. 9-13 Tromol pos No. 1020 Jakarta 10010
Ø Ketua Komisi Judisial Republik Indonesia di Jakarta, Chair of the Judicial Commission, Jl. Abdul Muis No. 8 Gedung ITC Lantai 5 Jakarta Pusat, Po Box 2685, Tel +62 (0) 21 3865661 Fax +62 (0) 21 3863147
Ø Ketua Pengadilan Tinggi Jayapura, Chair of the Jayapura High Court Jl. Tanjung Ria No. 98 Base “G” Jayapura 99117 Tel +62 (0) 967 541045 / 541443
Ø Kepala Kejaksaan Tinggi Papua di Jayapura, Head of the Papua High Prosecutor’s Office Jl. Anggrek No.6 Tanjung Ria Jayapura Tel +62 (0) 967 542764 / 541130
Ø Kepala Kantor Wilayah Kementrian Hukum dan HAM Propinsi Papua di Jayapura, Regional Office for the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Papua province Jln. Raya Abepura No. 37, Kotaraja, Jayapura, Fax:+62 (0) 967 586112
Ø H. E. Mr. Triyono Wibowo, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the UN Office in Geneva, Rue de Saint-Jean 16, 1203 Geneva, Tel: +41 22 338 33 50 , Fax: +41 22 345 57 33 , Email: mission.indonesia@ties.itu.int
Please also write to the embassies of Indonesia in your respective country.
***
Geneva, 9 December 2013
Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.
[1] Article 106 comprises vague terms enabling the authorities to sentence persons to life imprisonment - a maximum of twenty years imprisonment - for any attempts undertaken with the intent of bringing the territory of the state wholly or partially under foreign domination or to separate parts thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.