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.

Judicial Killing in the War on Drugs—The Death Penalty for Drug Offenses

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in Open Society Foundation on 26 November 2012.

The numbers are shocking.

At least 540 people executed for drugs in Iran in 2011.

At least 16 beheaded for drug-related offenses in Saudi Arabia in the first six months of 2012.

And thousands more languishing on death row awaiting a possible beheading, firing squad, lethal injection, or hanging. Many of them low-level mules, conned, coerced, or manipulated into carrying drugs into countries that retain capital punishment for drugs.

A new report, The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2012—Tipping the Scales for Abolition, identifies 33 countries or territories that still retain the death penalty for drug offenses, including 13 where the sentence is mandatory. The report documents the laws in place as well as how frequently the sanctions are applied.

The report was launched with the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty at the UK House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Vivien Stern, the Chair of the group.

While there have been alarming numbers of people who were executed or sentenced to death for drug offenses, Tipping the Scales for Abolition recognizes some positive legal and political developments in these countries. In 2012, Singapore and Malaysia recently took steps to review their mandatory death penalty for drug offenses. In India and South Korea, courtroom challenges helped overturn mandatory capital sanctions.

As the findings of this report suggest, the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty—particularly in the context of drug offenses—is moving in the right direction. Fewer than 10 countries actually carried out executions for drugs in 2011/2012 and the number of countries with capital drug laws on the books, are in decline.

Where these laws remain, however, they are entrenched in highly politicized “moral” rhetoric of governments. Drugs are posited as an “evil” that destroys the future of youth and society. Drug offenses are very often referred to as more dangerous than murder.

These arguments clash with human rights standards, which applies strict limits on the death penalty in international law. Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calls on States to reserve the death penalty for what the treaty terms “most serious crimes.” The UN body—and numerous human rights scholars and experts—have repeatedly asserted that drug offenses do not meet this standard.

In defense of their death penalty policies, governments sometimes argue that as drugs have potentially fatal consequences, these crimes should be equivalent to murder. However, as Prof. William Schabas—a leading expert on international law and the death penalty—argues, in most cases, the drug traffickers have been arrested and the drugs been confiscated. This means, the cargo never reached the public and thus there is no choate lethal or grave offense for which they are being punished.

While the movement to abolish the death penalty has made incredible strides in recent decades, what is not well-known is the role drug offenses play in modern capital punishment discourse.

In many countries that retain the death penalty, drug offenders make up the majority of those who are condemned to die. While it would certainly be ideal to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, a major incremental step would be to ensure international standards are followed vis-à-vis capital punishment for drugs.

HRI estimates that there may be as many as 1,000 people executed for a drug offense every year. But as the organization’s report shows, these sanctions are indefensible in international law—and they should be abolished.

Addicted to Corruption in Indonesia

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in Asia Catalyst on 3 December 2009.

Rose (not her real name) has been using drugs for more than ten years. During that time, she had been arrested a number of times, and her life has been harrowing. Not long ago, she began to feel hope for the first time, when in a breakthrough decision, Indonesia’s judges decided to send her to a rehabilitation center to treat her addiction.

However, Indonesia’s rotten and corrupt judicial system dashed her hopes.

Rose was arrested by the police on January 23, 2009 and after a lengthy legal process, received a court decision on July 27. Normally, Indonesia’s courts sentence drug users to prison. In this case, the court ordered her to be imprisoned for one year and eight months, but to begin with a period of rehabilitation for six months. This meant that once she got out from rehab she would only need to stay in prison for one year and two months. Since she had already served six months in detention waiting for her court hearing, that would be deducted from the total sentence, and Rose would only need to serve eight months in prison after her time in rehab.

The court’s decision to sentence Rose to rehab was a breakthrough and a first for Indonesia. It signaled that courts are finally beginning to consider drug users as victims from a health perspective, and to understand that putting them in prison will not treat their addiction. In fact, Indonesia’s poor correctional facilities will only deteriorate their health.

However, as of this writing – more than three months after the court decision – Rose is still waiting in a detention center.

What went wrong? After the court delivered its decision, the prosecutor’s office should have executed the judgment; in this case, they should have transferred Rose from Pondok Bambu Detention Center to Drug Dependence Hospital in Cibubur, Jakarta, for six months, and then sent her on to the correctional facility for eight months.

But the prosecutor, detention center and hospital officials had no idea of how to transfer such a person. Rose is the first person detained in the Pondok Bambu Detention Center to be sentenced to rehab. The prosecutor claimed that they have no standard operational procedure for transferring a person from a detention center to a rehab center.

Poor administration and bad bureaucracy have led Rose’s sentence-execution letter to ping-pong from one unit to another within the prosecutor’s office, with many typos added along the way, thus necessitating repeated rewriting of the letters. Disgracefully and predictably, the prosecutor has tried to extort Rose for fees in order to “expedite the process”.

It seems that the prosecutor doesn’t understand the concept of drug dependence. A drug user who is suffering from serious addiction, and who is detained for more than three months without proper medication, is of course having a very hard time. Ignoring Rose’s dire need to get drug dependence treatment simply amounted to ill-treatment. Rose is suffering terribly in detention.

It is deeply disappointing to see that after more than ten years of efforts at institutional reform, the prosecutor’s office has failed to eradicate the cancer eating away at its heart: that is, corruption. If in this petty case, a prosecutor is unable to handle the execution of a straightforward sentence to rehab, then it is no wonder that in cases involving corruption of high-rank government officials, members of parliament, or even in the case of Munir – Indonesia’s assassinated human rights defender – the prosecutor is utterly impotent.

The key to successful institutional reform lies in the ability of institutions to recognize their own weaknesses. They need to be able to acknowledge that there are internal problems that need to be fixed, and be open to constructive criticism as well as expert assistance from outside. Without this ability to diagnose and fix its own weaknesses, the institution itself will be left behind and excluded by other enhanced and modern institutions that are transparent, accountable, and that have zero tolerance of corruption.

Indonesia’s prosecutors should learn a lesson from Rose’s heartrending story. It should be a basis for the prosecutor in developing procedures to handle similar cases in the future, so that no one again will undergo what Rose has — and still is — suffering.