Category: Uncategorized

Statement on the Reprisals against Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Ms. Anchana Heemmina, and Mr. Somchai Homlaor

We, the undersigned civil society groups, are gravely concerned about the legal action taken by the Royal Thai Army for criminal defamation and Computer Crimes Act violations against Woman Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Ms. Anchana Heemmina, and HRD Mr. Somchai Homlaor. Ms. Pornpen, is the Director of the Cross Cultural Foundation – an organization which monitors and documents cases of torture and ill-treatment in Thailand. Mr. Somchai, is the President of the Cross Cultural Foundation, and Ms. Anchana is director of Duay JaiGroup (Hearty Support Group) – a local organization based in Thailand’s ‘Deep South’, which supports people who suffer from the justice system in national security cases. All three are co-editors of a report, Torture and ill treatment in The Deep South Documented in 2014-2015 documenting 54 cases of inhumane treatment in detention, launched on 10th February 2016. The research and report was partly funded by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established under the General Assembly resolution 36/151 in 1981, thus under the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council Resolution 12/2 these HRDs and their colleagues are “individuals who cooperate with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of Human Rights.”

On 8th June 2016, Internal Security Operations Command Region 4 (ISOC 4) gave information to Ms. Pornpen through a phone conversation that ISOC 4 sought the power of attorney from the Royal Thai Army and submitted a complaint to Yala Mueang Police Station on 17th May 2016 for criminal defamation and computer-related violations by the three HRDs. The charges are for alleged criminal defamation under Article 328 of the Thai Criminal Code, and violation of the Computer Crimes Act (2007), Article 14(1). We are disturbed regarding information that authorities have already interrogated six witnesses. The Police case file is No. 704/2559.

This judicial action has been taken despite the Human Rights Defenders’ best efforts to engage authorities on the evidence of torture and ill-treatment presented in the report. Namely, the report was sent to Army Lt Gen Wiwat Pathompak, Commander of the 4th Army Region, on 8th January 2016, one month before its publication. However, high-ranking military government officials have publicly dismissed the accuracy of the report and questioned the intentions of the civil society organisations who compiled the report. Furthermore, Ms. Anchana, WHRD working in Thailand’s ‘Deep South’, faced summons to an Army camp, lengthy questioning by Army officers, and close physical surveillance and intimidation by unidentified, uniformed men.

We deem this action by the Royal Thai Army to be a prompt reprisal against civil society groups seeking to bring to the authorities’ attention the continued abuse of power and ill-treatment of detainees in Thailand. The Royal Thai Army has taken these actions at a time when it the Thai military government has renewed the Thailand’s international commitments to abolishing the use of torture. On 11th May 2016, at the United Nation’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Thailand 12 UN member states issued recommendations directly relating to the prevention of torture and access to justice for survivors of torture. Furthermore, on 24th May 2016 the Thai military government issued a Cabinet Resolution stating that they will pass a Prevention of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act. It is troubling that the Royal Thai Army has ordered the legal pursuit of HRDs who have been supporting victims of torture as well as pushing at many levels for policy reform and state action to prevent torture and provide justice to survivors.

We deem the Royal Thai Army’s action to be an unreasonable, arbitrary, and heavy-handed attempt to silence all complaints of allegations of torture against the authorities. By quashing Ms. Pornpen, Ms. Anchana, and Mr Somchai’s efforts to support torture victims to publicly complain about Human Rights violations by authorities, the Royal Thai Army is seeking to make it more than impossible for torture victims to voice their complaints. Moreover, this is a deplorable act by the Royal Thai Army as it aims to further intimidate existing and potential victims of human rights violations to not report these violations. Instead of suppressing the work of Human Rights Defenders, such as Ms. Pornpen, Ms. Anchana, and Mr. Somchai, the Royal Thai Army should, as New Zealand recommended at the UPR, “Promptly investigate and prosecute all allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings,” and as Canada recommended, “Create an independent body to investigate all torture allegations, including in Thailand’s Deep South, and bring perpetrators to justice.”

This judicial harassment constitutes a direct infringement of Ms. Pornpen, Ms. Anchana, and Mr. Somchai’s right to work as a Human Rights Defender in Thailand. As stated in Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders “Everyone has the right to (individually and in association with others) promote and to strive for the realization of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international level.” We believe that the filing of this criminal legal case against Ms. Pornpen, Ms. Anchana, and Mr. Somchai was undertaken with the purpose of retaliation and that it is in response to the three HRDs peaceful and legitimate activities to hold authorities to account for cases of human rights violations, including torture, in Thailand’s ‘Deep South.’

We call on the Royal Thai Army to:

  • Immediately and unconditionally withdraw the legal action against Ms. Pornpen, Ms. Anchana, and Mr. Somchai. Such legal action against the legitimate work of HRDs is against the public interest.
  • Ensure that no further retaliation is carried out or allowed to happen in the future against HRDs, ill-treatment and torture victims, their colleagues and families.

We call on the Thai military government to:

  • Respect the universally recognized rights, duties and obligations of everyone and organizations to highlight information about Human Rights violations and injustices to the public, as stated in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders;
  • Ensure that all persons affected by torture and other human rights violations receive justice, including first and foremost the right to complain which must be respected at all times.
  • Ensure the implementations of recommendations it accepted during the recent UPR with regard to HRDs

 

You can see the full statement here in PDF.

Consultancy Opportunity

LBH Masyarakat is looking for a part-time independent consultant to help developing a plan and strategy of funding and fundraising of the organization. The consultant will be assigned to identify potential donors and fundraising opportunities to sustain the organization’s financial sustainability.

The consultancy work starts from 12 May until 17 June 2016, for a fifteen days consultancy contract.

Please submit your application to Ricky Gunawan, Director of LBH Masyarakat, to this email address: rgunawan@lbhmasyarakat.org

The deadline for this application is: Sunday, 8 May 2016, 18:00 Jakarta time (GMT +7). For detailed information please click here.

The Trip to Nobody Knows Where

In 2011, the Indonesian Government issued the Government Regulation Number 25 Year 2011 regarding the Implementation of the Compulsory Report of Drug Dependents which regulates the practice of compulsory report and rehabilitation for drug users in Indonesia. By this regulation, Indonesia produced a new institution called the Compulsory Report Institution (Institusi Penerima Wajib Lapor or usually abbreviated as IPWL). This institution is not only the place where drug users can access treatment, but also the place to note, gather, and process the data of drug users.

Looking at its importance, there is a need to understand the implementation of compulsory report and its effect on drug users’ life. This research attempts to explore how the compulsory report system has addressed drug users’ human rights. Besides that, this research also tries to assess the effectiveness of IPWL according to the client’s need.

This research finds that although the program is called compulsory report, many drug users felt that they joined the program voluntarily. There are several exception cases when drug users’ family or friends forced the drug users to enter treatment. The information of transition from a rehabilitation center to a compulsory report institution is sometimes inaccessible for drug users, making them feel coerced to join IPWL institution. There are shameful approaches also done by the IPWL institution to get patients, like offering the patients money or tricking potential drug users to become patients.

The issue of voluntarily could not be separated from the issue of accessibility of information. Although many drug users testified that they join the program voluntarily, the majority of them did not know the kind of treatment that is offered. The information that is more accessible for them is the knowledge of the warranty that the program participants will not be prosecuted, therefore some patients joins the IPWL program merely to avoid prosecution.

Relating to other element of accessibility, the majority of drug users said that the compulsory report institutions are physically accessible for them. There is, however, special concern for drug users who live in remote area where do not have drug treatment provider or ARV treatment provider. For some drug users also, the compulsory report institutions are not accessible due to the limited work-hours of the IPWL institution which does not accommodate clients who have regular jobs or educations.

The price of treatment for IPWL patients are different one another. The disparity of price happens between cities, between IPWL institutions in one city, and even between clients in one IPWL institution. The regulation which does not specify the price of treatment and gives the district government the authority to control the price make the disparity of IPWL payment.

In term of the quality of drug treatment in IPWL, this research finds four problems, which are: some IPWL institution could not give appropriate measure for drug users in withdrawal phase, the problem of medicine supply, the hard mechanism to lower IPWL clients’ methadone dosage, and other problems in social IPWL institution. Albeit these problems, the majority of clients were satisfied with the politeness and patience of the doctor or nurse in IPWL institutions.

Since drug users who join IPWL program are clients and in the process of treatment they submit their personal information to IPWL institution, the compulsory report system must then addresses their right to information and right to privacy carefully. In the aspect of right to information and right to privacy, this research finds that some clients did not get or were not explained the treatment plan. Though the clients are relatively comfortable sharing information with the health workers of the IPWL institution, there are cases showing that their personal information has been breached.

Many drug users access IPWL treatment when they still have a job or take education. The working hours of IPWL institution hinder some of them to fulfil their right to work and education. There is also other challenges where IPWL clients are still stigmatized and discriminated in workplace or education institution. The IPWL policy has not been promoted enough to other parties which may have strong influence to the clients’ life.

Because it is important for drug users to feel comfortable while get treatment, this research tries to find whether there are violence and discrimination in IPWL program. This research can only finds several examples of violence and discrimination against IPWL clients when accessing IPWL treatment, from either IPWL providers or other IPWL clients. However, this research also finds that IPWL system help some clients in reducing stigma they received from the family or society.

Another serious human right violation found in this research is criminalization of drug use. While many drug user perceived IPWL registration as a guarantee that they would not be prosecuted, many of them still prosecuted in practices. The IPWL institution has small role when a client is arrested, resulting in many clients felt disappointed with both the IPWL institution and IPWL program.

Indonesia’s drug policy use the perspective of abstinence to handle drug dependency. This research proves that IPWL program will not be effective if the purpose of treatment is only to achieve abstinence because the majority of IPWL clients use drugs again after they have accessed treatment. Some drug users also believe that the IPWL program would not run effectively if the patient join program involuntarily. Lastly, the IPWL program is not effective because many IPWL clients are still prosecuted and punished, a way that has been proved damaging drug users’ health condition.

The title of this report, “The Trip to Nobody Knows Where”, is inspired by the title of Uli M. Schüppel’s movie “The Road to God Knows Where”, a documentary about Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds’ 1989 tour of America. Compulsory report program was designed to overcome Indonesia’s drug problem, but in practice all parties that involve in the program see the program’s objective in different ways. For example, relating with criminalization of drug use, drug users perceive the IPWL program as a safe card from law enforcement agencies, the law enforcement agencies persistently state that IPWL clients could still be prosecuted, while the IPWL providers want to help drug users in criminalization but their role are limited. This different ways and interests in viewing the objective of IPWL program makes nobody could not predict the end situation that will be created by IPWL policy. Therefore, the researchers find that this title, “The Trip to Nobody Knows Where”, suits with the current situation.

You can download this report from this link.

Reality Behind Bars

Law enforcement measures inevitably involve a contradiction: on the one hand they aim to create order by imposing certain restrictions on freedoms and liberties, while on the other hand they must honor liberties and freedoms of every individual that they limit. Humans inherently are endowed with rights, and when these rights are derogated from them, their humanity is undermined. A question then arises, in the event of a crime that poses a threat to public order what are we supposed to do with the perpetrators of the crime? Doing nothing will disrupt public order and will lead to a chaos that in turn will deny the human rights of other individuals. Law enforcement essentially involves some restrictions to the human rights of the perpetrators, but at the same time, the perpetrators of the crime are also humans endowed with rights that must be protected. This is exactly the critical point of the tension between these two opposite situations.

You can download this book from this link.

Media Coverage of Our Works (2)

Here are links to several articles which covered the works of LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute):

  1. The Telegraph, 4 October 2010, \”Indonesian minister jokes about Aids on Twitter\”
  2. Southeast Asia Globe, 3 February 2015, \”A view to kill\”
  3. R7, 24 April 2015, \”Indonésia: Defesa de brasileiro tenta novo recurso em meio a iminência de execução\”
  4. R7, 25 April 2015, \”Brasileiro reage com surpresa e delírio a anúncio de execução na Indonésia\”
  5. R7, 25 April 2015, \”Indonésia notifica brasileiro e execução poderá ser na 3ª-feira\”
  6. Yahoo!, 26 April 2015, \”Indonesia defiant as UN leads condemnation of looming executions\”
  7. Press TV, 26 April 2015, \”Indonesia says will execute drug convicts despite outcry\”
  8. Channel News Asia, 26 April 2015, \”Indonesia informs drug convicts of execution\”
  9. Pulse, 26 April 2015, \”10 death row prisoners profiled, including 4 Nigerians\”
  10. R7, 27 April 2015, \”Brasileiro tentará mesmo recurso que adiou execução de francês na Indonésia\”
  11. El Tiempo, 27 April 2015, \”Indonesia ejecutará a ocho extranjeros\”
  12. Tribuna Hoje, 28 April 2015, \”Familiares chegam ao local de execuções na Indonésia\”
  13. UCA news, 29 April 2015, \”Family of Filipina rejoice after Indonesia death sentence reprieve\”
  14. Paris Match, 30 April 2015, \”Un Brésilien schizophrène exécuté en Indonésie\”
  15. La Prensa, 30 April 2015, \”Brasileño Gularte no era consciente de que lo iban a ejecutar\”
  16. Iltalehti, 30 April 2015, \”Teloitettu brasialaismies ei ymmärtänyt kuolevansa\”
  17. Visão, 30 April 2015, \”Brasileiro executado na Indonésia não terá tido consciência de que estava prestes a morrer\”
  18. tvi24, 30 April 2015, \”Indonésia: execuções \”sem sentido e brutais\”\”
  19. Ultimo Segundo, 19 Juni 2015, \”\”Não acabou\”: Família de Gularte pressiona Indonésia por laudo médico\”
  20. The Jakarta Post, 9 October 2015, \”Groups want abolition of death penalty\”

Here are some joint statements made together with other organization(s):

  1. 22 November 2011, \”SYRIA: Joint call by civil society for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council\”
  2. 2015, \”Lima Declaration on Tax Justice and Human Rights\”
  3. 13 March 2016, \”Civil society statement – The UNGASS outcome document: Diplomacy or denialism?\”

Feel free to give us a shout in the comment section if you find another media coverage about us. Other international media coverage had been compiled here. You can also see the local media coverage about our works here and here.

Our Contribution for UNGASS 2016

Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem will be held in New York on 19-21 April 2016. Then, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) develops a system for civil society to contribute by sending books, research reports, movies, letters, etc. as references for discussions in the UNGASS.

On 3 March 2016, we have sent our contribution which later also published in UNGASS 2016 official website. You could also download our contribution through this link: 000316_A Proposal for UNGASS 2016_The Momentum for Change_LBHMasyarakat.

Volunteering Oppurtunity

If you feel passionately about law, politics, and human rights, especially the abolition of the death penalty, Reprieve would like to hear from you.

Reprieve is a small legal action charity that provides free legal and investigative support to some of the world’s most vulnerable people. With headquarters in London, and local staff plus partners based in countries around the world, Reprieve specializes in assisting those facing the death penalty around the world through the provision of support to the local legal team and advice to the international community regarding appropriate interventions.

We are looking for a Volunteer who would like to be involved for 20 hours per week until June 2016 and will be working closely with one of our fellows based in Jakarta. This is an exciting opportunity for you to get involved in the fight of death penalty abolition in Indonesia and gain valuable experience in legal research and knowledge in law and human rights.

We are looking for law student who could meet these requirements:
– Good writing skills in Bahasa Indonesia and English;
– A demonstrated commitment to human rights particularly the abolition of the death penalty;
– Good knowledge of Microsoft Word and Excel;
– Has taken subjects of the Indonesian criminal procedure law;
– Proven ability to work independently with a high-level of self-motivation.

If this sounds like you, please get in touch with Raynov Tumorang Pamintori by sending your recent CV and an application letter explaining why you are the ideal candidate to raynov@reprieve.org.uk on 3 February 2016 at the latest.

Open Letter: Indonesia’s Authorities Must End Executions and Abolish The Death Penalty

Mr. Luhut Panjaitan,
Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security Affairs
Coordinating Ministry for Politics, Law and Security Affairs
Jl. Merdeka Barat No. 15,
Jakarta Pusat 10110
Indonesia

 

18 January 2016

Dear Minister,

Indonesia’s authorities must end executions and abolish the death penalty

We are writing to you on the issue of the application of the death penalty in Indonesia. It has been a year since your administration resumed executions in Indonesia on 18 January 2015, after a four year hiatus, despite strong protests from human rights organizations and the international community.

Our organizations are concerned despite your public announcement in November 2015 that Indonesia government would suspend any executions in near future[1] the Attorney General has recently announced[2] that further executions will be carried out in 2016. As there continues to be serious concerns about violations of fair trial and other human rights in the use of the death penalty in Indonesia we ask for your immediate intervention to address these issues. In particular, we urge you to ensure all death sentences are reviewed by an independent and impartial body, with a view to their commutation.

Research findings by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia, Komnas HAM)[3] and additional independent research carried out by Amnesty International,[4] ICJR (Institute for Criminal Justice Reform)[5], and other human rights organizations, point to systemic flaws in the administration of justice in Indonesia and violation of fair trial and other international safeguards that must be strictly observed in all death penalty cases[6]:

  • Defendants in the cases under analysis did not have access to legal counsel from the time of arrest and at different stages of their trial and appeals; they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody to make them “confess” to their alleged crimes or sign police investigation reports.
  • Prisoners were brought before a judge for the first time when their trials began, months after their arrest.
  • In several cases involving foreign nationals, particularly those convicted of drug-related offences, the authorities failed to correctly identify or verify the identity of the prisoner and notify relevant country representations of the arrest. The authorities also failed to provide translation and interpretation to those prisoners who could not understand Bahasa, whether they were foreigners or Indonesian nationals.
  • The death penalty continued to be used extensively for drug-related offences, even though these offences do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes”, the only category of crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Indonesia is a state party, pending its abolition.

In addition, despite the clear prohibition under international law concerning the use of the death penalty against persons who were below 18 years of age or have a mental or intellectual disability, credible claims put forward by prisoners in relation to their age and mental illness were not adequately investigated by the authorities and have resulted in the unlawful imposition of the death penalty and, in at least one case, execution. While Indonesian law requires that all births be registered, in practice many people do not undergo this process, making the determination of one’s age particularly challenging. This, coupled with a lack of legal assistance, increases the risk that persons who were below 18 when the crime was committed are exposed to the death penalty. Additionally, defendants and prisoners are not regularly and independently assessed, which can result in mental disabilities remaining undiagnosed and prisoners not being afforded the care and treatment they might need.

Research findings also show that in some cases prisoners did not receive legal assistance when appealing against their conviction or sentence, or did not even submit an appeal application because they were not informed by their lawyers of their right to do so. Furthermore, the execution of some death row prisoners went ahead even though the Indonesian courts had accepted to hear their appeals. The announcement by President Joko Widodo in December 2014 and February 2015 that he would not grant clemency to any individuals convicted of and sentenced to death for drug-related crimes and information relating to some clemency rejections cast doubts on the meaningful exercise of the President’s constitutional power to grant clemency and the country’s compliance with the ICCPR.

As of today, 140 countries are abolitionist in law or practice. Three more countries – Fiji, Madagascar and Suriname- became abolitionist for all crimes in 2015 alone and the Parliament of Mongolia adopted a new Criminal Code at the end of last year, removing the death penalty as possible form of punishment under the laws of the country. The resumption of executions in Indonesia have not only set the country against its international obligations, but also against the global trend towards abolition of the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

Our organizations reiterate our calls on the government of Indonesia to establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards abolition of the death penalty. Pending full abolition, we urge you to immediately establish an independent and impartial body, or mandate an existing one, to review all cases where people have been sentenced to death, with a view to commuting the death sentences or, in cases where the procedures were seriously flawed, offer a retrial that fully complies with international fair trial standards and which does not resort to the death penalty.

 

This letter is co-signed by the following organizations:

Amnesty International
Elsam (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy)
HRWG (Human Rights Working Group)
ICJR (Institute for Criminal Justice Reform)
Imparsial (the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor)
KontraS (the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence)
LBH Masyarakarat (Community Legal Aid Institute)
Migrant Care
PKNI (Indonesian Drug User Network)
YLBHI (Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation)

 

[1] BBC, “Indonesia announces temporary halt to executions”, 19 November 2015, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34867235.

[2] Jakarta Post, “More drug convicts to be executed next year”, 23 December 2015, available at http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/12/23/more-drug-convicts-be-executed-next-year.html#sthash.roUDe3yX.dpuf.

[3] Komnas HAM issued two reports in 2010 and 2011. The 2011 report was based on a research mission conducted between September and December 2011 into 17 prisons in 13 provinces (North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, South Sumatra, Banten, Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, East Java, West Kalimantan, Bali and East Nusa Tenggara), during which 56 death row prisoners were interviewed. The 2010 report was based on a monitoring mission to 10 prisons in five provinces and on interviews with 41 death row inmates between September and October 2010.

[4] Amnesty International, “Flawed Justice-Unfair trials and death penalty in Indonesia” (ASA 21/2434/2015), October 2015, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/2434/2015/en/.

[5] Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), Overview on Death Penalty in Indonesia, 2015, available at: http://icjr.or.id/data/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Overview-on-Death-Penalty-in-Indonesia.pdf.

[6] Among other standards, the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, Approved by Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984.

Skip to content