I have been asked to present an overview on human rights in Papua. The presentation will be limited to the human rights situation before the approval of the Special Autonomy Law by the national Parliament, the DPR, in October 2001.
I would like to begin with a quotation regarding human rights taken from the Elucidation of the Draft Law on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua proposed by the Provincial Government of Papua. The Government recognises that “... the people of Papua understand very well what it is to suffer from the violation of human rights. The people of Papua have clearly experienced a trauma from violations of fundamental human rights in the past which has ceaselessly haunted many Papuans until today.”1
Following this official acknowledgement by the Government, I would like
to present a general picture on the human rights situation before October
Period from 1961 to 1963: The denial of the right to participation
When Indonesia declared its independence on August 17, 1945, Papua was not included in the territory of the new republic. In fact, Papua remained a province of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The Dutch Government then began preparations for Papua to become an independent state by the 1970s.2 However, the Indonesian Government opposed this preparation.3 Papua then became a disputed land between the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands. The Indonesian Government claimed that Papua was an integral part of Indonesian territory. Meanwhile the Dutch Government rejected the Indonesian claim and was committed to the establishment of an independent state of Papua. The Papua case was then discussed in several bilateral meetings between the two Governments as well as in a number international forums.4
Under the influence of the United States,5 on August 15, 1962, both Governments signed the New York Agreement. The Agreement contained several guiding principles to settle the Papua case through a so-called Act of Free Choice. The formal transfer of power over Papua was to take place on May 1, 1963.6
Indigenous Papuans, however, had not been involved in any of the discussions,
neither during bilateral nor during international meetings, not even when
the New York Agreement was signed. This means that the future of the Papuans
was discussed without the involvement of any Papuan. The Papuans were ignored
and entirely excluded from the entire decision-making process. This constituted
a clear denial of the Papuans’ rights to participation.
Period 1963-1969: The denial of the right to self-determination
According to the New York Agreement, the Indonesian Government was obligated to hold the Act of Free Choice in Papua. Seeking to win the Act of Free Choice, the Indonesian Government began eradicating the Papuans' idea of independence through the destruction of artefacts connected with Papuan life-style. The national anthem was prohibited from being sung and the Papuan national "Morning Star" flag was also prohibited from being raised.7
After having immediately dismissed the Papua Parliament, whose members had been elected by the Papuans through the general election in February 1961, the Government established a new regional assembly that included none of the elected Papuan Parliamentarians.8
The Government prohibited the Papuans to express their rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, to freedom of movement and to freedom of assembly. The prohibition was laid down in the Presidential Decree No. 8/1963, as follows:
"In the region of West Irian, it shall for the time being, be prohibited to undertake political activity in the form of rallies, meetings, demonstrations or the printing, publication, announcement, issuance, dissemination, trading or public display of articles, pictures or photographs without permission of the Governor or an official appointed by him."9
The prohibition was then strengthened by Anti-Subversion legislation, i.e. Presidential Decree No. 11/1963. Political activities by the Papuans were often considered as subversive and repressed with reference to the Anti-Subversion legislation.10
The resistance of the Papuans was responded by the Government through
military operations, such as Operation Consciousness (Operasi Sadar,
1965-1967),11 Operation Brathayudha (1967-1969),12
Operation Authority (Operasi Wibawa, 1969).13
Carmel Budiardjo and Liem Soei Liong disclosed the hidden motivation of
the latter military operation:
"The planning and implementation of Operasi Wibawa was a clear sign that the Soeharto regime realised that a massive military operation was essential if the Act of 'Free' Choice was to be steered to a 'successful' conclusion."14
When the Act of Free Choice drew closer, the Indonesian security forces were not only killing the Papuans through their military operations but also intimidating and terrorising them not to vote for independence. As Brian May, an AFP correspondent in Papua at the time, noted: "Indonesian troops and officials were waging a widespread campaign of intimidation to force the Act of Free Choice in favour of the Republic."15
The rights abuses culminated in the exclusion of the majority of the
Papuans from exercising their voting right in the Act of Free Choice in
1969: Out of 815.906 Papuans at that time, the Indonesian Government selected
only 1.026 people as representatives entitled to participate in the Act
of Free Choice. Here, the Papuans’ fundamental right to self-determination
Period 1970-1998: Gross human rights violations
The Papuans were officially recognised as Indonesian citizens on February 17, 1971, through the Presidential Decree No. 7/1971. Indonesian citizenship did, however, not change the human rights situation for the Papuans.
Papua declared to be a Military Operation Zone
The Indonesian Government declared Papua to be a Military Operation Zone (Daerah Operasi Militer, commonly referred to as DOM), which granted the Indonesian military full control over the territory of Papua and was upheld until 1998.
Some regions in Papua were even closed to the public. Any person who
wanted to visit the regions needed a surat jalan or a written permission
from the police or the security forces. In order to get a permission, purpose
and duration of the visit needed to be clarified; furthermore, the visitor
was required to report on all the items and belongings he or she wanted
to take along during the stay. Thus, for example, a priest who wanted to
visit several villages in the closed regions for Christmas or Easter celebrations
was obliged to get a written permission from the local police or military
station. After his arrival at one of these villages, the written permission
should as soon as possible be submitted to the military or police personnel
deployed there. The priest should tell them for how long he would be there
and when he would leave the village. The same procedure was applied when
visiting other villages in the closed regions.16
Conducting military operations
In the name of maintaining the Indonesian territorial integrity through the eradication of any separatist movement, the Government conducted several military operations. These included military operations in Jayawijaya regency (1977),17 Operation Clean-Sweep (Operasi Sapu Bersih) I and II (1981),18 Operation Reinforce (Operasi Galang) I and II (1982),19 Operation Clean-up (Operasi Tumpas, 1983-1984),20 Operation Clean–Sweep (1985)21 and another military operation in Mapnduma, Jayawijaya regency (1996).22
The denial of Papuan cultural expressions
Any cultural expression by the Papuans was considered as a manifestation of a separatist movement. Papuans who sang in their local language were beaten, tortured, detained and even killed by Indonesian security forces in the name of eradicating any separatist movement.23 For example, Arnold Ap, a Papuan musician and the curator of the Cendrawasih University Museum, was killed by the Indonesian military after having been detained.24 The traditional cultures in Papua were also considered as uncivilised. The Chinese-Indonesian medical doctor Joseph Lukman Ojong who has been working in Papua for more than 17 years notes that the majority of Indonesians most likely considers Papuan culture as uncivilised and primitive.25
The denial of Papuan cultural identity26
The Papuans were not allowed call themselves Papuans or Melanesians. Those who openly professed their cultural identities were often beaten tortured or even killed for allegedly being separatists or supporters of the separatist movement.
As a substitute, the Government taught the Papuans to refer to themselves as 'Indonesians from the Province of Irian Jaya'. So a Papuan should not call himself or herself a Papuan, but 'an Indonesian from the Province of Irian Jaya'. The Government did not apply similar teachings to other Indonesians. Thus, a Javanese can freely and proudly refer to him- or herself as Javanese, the Government never taught them to refer to themselves as 'Indonesians from the Province of Central Java'.
The denial of the Papuans' right to ancestral lands
In former days, under customary or adat law, Papuans were the owners of the forests. The forest had an economic as well as a religious meaning for the Papuans: It was considered as a source of food, a shelter in times of tribal wars and a place to communicate with ancestral spirits. To the Papuans, the meaning of the forest is embodied in their saying: "The forest is our mother." As the Papuans of the Amungme tribe express it: "The mountain is the symbol of the head of our mother, the rivers are the symbols of mother’s breast milk. So the exploitation of forest and mountain is an expression of sexual abuse against our mother earth."27
However, under Indonesian rule, the Papuans were no longer the owners of their ancestral land. Papuans' ancestral land was plundered under the pretext of national development, their forests were expropriated and exploited. Many forestry concessionaries have invaded the Papuans' ancestral forests. Companies with their head office in Jakarta have divided among themselves the forests of Papua. The authorities and business people who are non-Papuans have become owners of the forest and the land. The Papuans, who are the true owners of their land, have now become more the guardians of the forests which belong to other people. As the renowned Indonesian human rights lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis notes: "The people have lost their lands and daily activities."28
If a mine is discovered in a forest concession, the company wishing to exploit the mine must pay for the mining area to the concessionaire, who claims to be the owner of the forest, not to the local community or the Papuans.29 Once a private company has begun with its exploitation activity, the local inhabitants are not allowed to enter into the claimed forest, not even to collect firewood. All private companies are safeguarded by the Indonesian security forces.30
When the native Papuans demand their rights of ownership of the forest, they are always accused of being supporters of the separatists, of being anti-Government or anti-development. All these labels give justification to the security forces to use violence in the name of development, national stability and national security. Many Papuans have been beaten, tortured, detained, intimidated and even killed by the security forces.31 As noted by John Rumbiak, a leading human rights activist, "… all abuses in West Papua were caused by military and police presence aimed at protecting mining firms, forest concessions and timber estates exploiting natural resources."32
The Papuan’s ancestral land is easily grabbed through the collaboration between the Government and the private companies. As Papuans of the Amungme tribe point out: “By using the label of separatist and a gun pointed at us, the Government, private companies and the Indonesians easily rob our land without consulting us.”33
So the Papuans have been victims of military operations, extra-judicial killings,34 torture and maltreatment,35 arbitrary detention,36 rape37 and other forms of oppression. Muridan S. Widjoyo, an Indonesian researcher, recognises that the Papuans have been suffering too much from intimidation, killings, discrimination and marginalisation.38 Papuans have been enduring deep suffering and experiencing jeopardising fears that render them helpless.39 The rights abuses have wounded their hearts that are not easily to be healed. Their experiences of rights abuses have led the Papuans to a collective awareness of being colonised, exploited, discriminated, oppressed and powerless.40
From 1998 until 2001: Peaceful demands versus violence
Peaceful demands by the Papuans
The fall of Soeharto brought about a little space for democracy. The Papuans used this space to express their demand for a genuine dialogue to settle the Papua case. They began to express their demand for the right to self-determination in a peaceful manner, which is through peaceful demonstrations in the cities. In every demonstration they raised the West Papuan Morning Star flag. In each of the demonstrations, many Papuans took part. The demonstrations were held in Biak town (July 2-6, 1998), Wamena town (July 7, 1998), Jayapura (July 1, 1999), Sorong town (July 5, 1999) and Timika town (November 10 - December 2, 1999). On December 1,1999, the Papuans jointly raised the Morning Star flag in 13 towns in Papua.
In a meeting with the third President of Indonesia, B.J. Habibie, on February 26, 1999, the Papuans expressed openly that they wanted to establish an independent state of West Papua. Their request was rejected, but the Papuans rejoiced nevertheless, because they were able to express their aspiration, honestly and peacefully.41
One year after the meeting with President Habibie, the Papuans held a three-day convention (February 26-29, 2000) in Jayapura. In their final resolution, they publicly declared that the Papuans strongly rejected the process and the result of the undemocratic Act of Free Choice of 1969 because Papuans had not been involved in the entire process.42
The Papuans' demand for their right to self-determination was strongly
confirmed and fully supported by the Papuans in the second Papuan Congress.
The Congress was held in Jayapura from May 29 to June 4, 2000.43
It was fully supported by Papuans from all sections of society. Some 5.000
Papuans coming from all regions and representing all sections of society
in Papua as well as Papuan representatives from abroad participated in
the Congress.44 Having stated the denial of their
right to self-determination in 1969, the Congress firmly rejected the process
and the exercise of the undemocratic Act of Free Choice. The representatives
at the Congress strongly rejected the use violence in the struggle for
the Papuans' right to self-determination. The Congress decided to continue
fighting for their right to self-determination through peaceful and democratic
ways with respect for human dignity and human rights, based on truth, dialogue,
rectification of history and peace.45 It then called
on the Central Government to engage in a genuine and peaceful dialogue,
mediated and monitored by an internationally recognised and experienced
institution. The call for dialogue was intended to identify the problems,
clarify the root-causes of the Papua case and jointly determine a solution
which should be peaceful, democratic and without any form of violence.46
The Congress established the Papuan Presidium Council (PPC) representing
all tribes, religions and regions. The PPC was mandated to push for the
right to self-determination peacefully through dialogue and negotiation.
The response of Indonesian Government
The Papuan call for a genuine dialogue was answered with the deployment of thousands of troops47 and the use of violence.48 Instead of engaging in a dialogue, "... the security forces have adopted a strategy which involves repression, support for pro-Jakarta militias, splitting the moderate and hard-line elements of the pro-independence movement, and creating conflict between local people and settlers from outside."49
The Central Government drew up a secret plan to crackdown the separatist movement, laid down in a 'top secret' document issued on June 8, 2000. The plan comprised the formation of militias, tough action against independence leaders as well as clandestine and intelligence operations.50
In 2000, the Indonesian police continued to use violence in addressing the Papuan demand for the right to self-determination: From February 2 to March 3, three Papuans were shot dead in Nabire town, 16 people were detained and tortured, 11 Papuans were badly injured by police shooting.54 In Merauke town, one person was shot dead and three Papuans were badly injured during peaceful demonstrations between November 4 and 11, 2000.55 In Wamena town, some 37 people were killed, many were injured and eight people were taken into custody in a conflict provoked by the police.56 In Manokwari town, the Indonesian police shot four people and detained another seven Papuans.57 There were some other cases of violence against the Papuans committed by the police in other Papuan towns, like in Fak-fak (March 19),58 Sorong (August 22),59 Jayapura (September 20)60 and Abepura (December 7).61
In 2001, the Indonesian military and police still continued to use violence
to 'solve' the Papua case. Violence between the Indonesian military and
Papuan civilians erupted in Betaf, which is a sub-district in the Jayapura
regency (February 3),62 in Jayapura (February 27-29)63
and in Wasior, which is a sub-district in the Manokwari regency (March
31-June 14).64 The series of violence by the Indonesian
military and police in 2001 culminated in the abduction and assassination
of Theys Hiyo Eluay, the non-violent Papuan leader on November 10, 2001,
by the Indonesian Army’s Special Force Kopassus.65
They still continue to use violence and intelligent operations in order
to terrorise the Papuans.66
Some other Papuans who had been arbitrarily arrested and taken to the police station were even tortured to death, for example, John Karrunggu and Orry Doronggi who died in police custody through torture committed by the police in Jayapura.69
Not only people openly supporting the demand for the right to self-determination
became victims of torture, but also Papuans who defended their property.
One example is the experience of Iskia Opur, 34, a Papuan living in Manokwari:
In December 13, 2000, an Indonesian businessman came to Iskia's village
and started taking away sand from the land owned by Iskia. The Indonesian
took the sand from there without asking or consulting Iskia. Realising
that someone was stealing sand from his ancestral lands, Iskia went to
meet the Indonesian and demanded that he returned the sand which had been
loaded on a truck. The Indonesian complied with the demand and then left
the place and went to report the case to an Indonesian police officer.
Eventually, the Indonesian returned to the village accompanied by two police
officers. Iskia was taken to the police station. On the way, Iskia was
beaten and tortured by the police, blood came running out of his mouth.
Arriving at the police station, Iskia was showered with water. The police
then realised that Iskia had already died from the torture. Iskia’s body
was then taken to the public hospital. Half an hour later, the parents
of Iskia arrived at the hospital and the police and other people in the
hospital came to know who he was.70
The Papuans have been victims of human rights violations for decades, particularly during the Indonesian rule over Papua. The rights abuses include killing, torture, intimidation, arbitrary detention, rape and other forms of oppression.
Rights groups estimate that at least 100,000 Papuans have been killed
since May 1, 1963. The Jayapura based Institute for Human Rights Studies
and Advocacy (ELSHAM) reported that between 1998 and 2002 136 Papuans were
killed by the security forces and 838 Papuans had been victims of torture.
The perpetrators of the rights abuses have never been taken to court. The
impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of human rights violations, in the
past and in the present, should be ended by conducting independent investigations
and bring the perpetrators before a court of justice.
1 The Team Established By The Governor of the Papua
Province, Principle Ideas as Background for the Drafting of the Bill of
Special Autonomy for Papua Province, in the Form of a Self-Governing Territory,
Jayapura, 2001, p. 9.
2 For the preparation of an independent state of Papua, cf. Decki Natalis Pigay, Evolusi Nasionalisme dan Sejarah Konflik Politik di Papua (The Evolution of Nationalism and the History of Political Conflict in Papua), Jakarta, 2000, pp. 217-220. Henceforth simply Evolusi Nasionalisme dan Sejarah Konflik Politik di Papua.
3 Cf. ibid., pp. 220-234.
4 Cf. ibid., pp. 160-207.
5 Cf. ibid., pp. 237-241.
6 Cf. ibid., pp. 247-251.
7 Cf. Carmel Budiardjo and Liem Soei Liong, West Papua: The Obliteration of a People, London, 1988, p. 15; henceforth simply West Papua.
8 Cf. ibid., p.15.
9 Ibid., p.16.
10 Cf. op. cit.
11 Cf. ibid., pp. 18-19.
12 Cf. ibid., pp. 19-20.
13 Cf. ibid., pp. 20-22.
14 Ibid., p. 20.
15 Ibid., p. 23.
16 As a priest, I have gone through such experience for two years, 1992-1994.
17 Cf. West Papua, pp. 67-68.
18 Cf. ibid., p. 80.
19 Cf. ibid., p.71.
20 Cf. ibid., p. 86.
21 Cf. ibid., p. 81.
22 Cf. the report from the Papuans in Mapnduma, distributed by the Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy (ELSHAM), 21/2/2000; cf. also The Jakarta Post, 27/8/1999, p. 2.
23 Cf. Neles Kebadabi Tebay, "Explaining the Papuans Wish to Secede from Indonesia," in: The Jakarta Post, December 1, 1999, p. 5; henceforth Explaining the Papuans Wish to Secede from Indonesia.
24 Cf. Ikrar Nusa Bakti, Kebijakan Politik Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia di Pasifik: Upaya Mencegah Separatisme Papua (Political Policy for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia in Pacific: An Effort to halt the Papuan Separatism). A paper presented at a dialogue workshop on policies and regional security in the post-Cold-War era, Bandung, July 6-9, 2000.
25 Cf. Joseph Lukman Ojong, "Addressing the Papua Issue: A Doctor’s View," in: The Jakarta Post, 28/2/2001, p. 4.
26 Cf. Explaining the Papuans Wish to Secede from Indonesia, p. 5.
27 Cf. Land, Natural Resources and Environment. A Resolution of the Indigenous People of Amungme Tribe, published in Timika, Papua, 10/12/1998, p. 1; henceforth Land, Natural Resources and Environment.
28 Cf. Todung Mulya Lubis, "Who are We", in: Tempo, 18/3/2000, p. 64.
29 Cf. Neles Kebadabi Tebay, "Why the Papuans want to secede from Indonesia," in: The Jakarta Post, 2/12/1999, p. 5.
30 Cf. op. cit.
31 The latest report on the involvement of the Indonesian military in violence against the Papuans in the field of exploitation of natural resources in Papua, cf. International Crisis Group, Indonesia: Resource and Conflict in Papua, Jakarta/Brussels, 13/9/2002. Available at:
32 Cf. The Jakarta Post, 24/3/2000, p. 5.
33 Cf. Land, Natural Resources and Environment, p. 1.
34 Cf. ibid., pp. 86-87.
35 Cf. ibid., pp. 82-84.
36 Cf. ibid., pp. 82-83
37 For cases of the sexual abuse, cf. The Office for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church in Jayapura, Dampak Kehadiran Aparat Keamanan bagi Situasi Kemasyarakatan dan Hak-hak Asasi Manusia di Wilayah Pegunungan Bintang tahun 1998-awal 1999 (The Impact of the Presence of the Security Forces on the Societal Situation and Human Rights in the Region of Star Mountain in 1998 and at the Beginning of 1999), July 1999.
38 Cf. Muridan S. Widjoyo, "Papua Merdeka, Satu Babak Penantian", (Papua Freedom, a Term of Waiting), in: Kompas, 19/6/2000, p. 4.
39 Cf. The Office for Justice and Peace, Hak-hak Asasi Manusia di Wilayah Paniai, (Human Rights in the Region of Paniai).
40 Cf. Aboeprijadi Santoso, “Gus Dur Ends his Honeymoon with Papua,” in: The Jakarta Post, 10/12/2000, p. 5.
41 Cf. Evolusi Nasionalisme dan Sejarah Konflik Politik di Papua, pp. 326-331.
42 Cf. "Irianese Congress Rejects 1969 Plebiscite", in: The Jakarta Post, 1/3/1999, p. 1.
43 Cf. Yorris Th. Raweyai, Mengapa Papua Ingin Merdeka, (Why the Papuans want independence). Jayapura: Presidium Dewan Papua, 2002. pp. 83-84.
44 Cf. The Jakarta Post, 28/5/2000, p. 1.
45 Cf. Benny Giay, Menuju Papua Baru: Beberapa pokok pikiran sekitar emansipasi orang Papua (Toward a New Papua: Some thoughts around the emancipation of the people of Papua), Jayapura, 2000, pp. 35-47.
46 Cf. "West Papuans Declare Independence from RI", in: The Jakarta Post, 5/6/2000, p. 1.
47 Cf. Yafet Kambai, Gerakan Papua Merdeka di bawah bayang-bayang Mega-Haz (Papuan Independent Movement under the leadership of Mega-Haz), Jayapura: ELSHAM Papua, 2003, pp. 50-51; henceforth simply Gerakan Papua Merdeka.
48 Cf. The Office for Justice and Peace, Aspirasi Merdeka Masyarakat Tanah Papua dan Perjuangan Demokrasi Bangsa Indonesia Awal Tahun 2000. Suatu Peta Politik (The Aspiration of Independence of the People in Papuan Land and the Struggle for Democracy in Indonesia at the Beginning of 2000. A Political Map), Jayapura, February 2000.
49 Tapol, Aceh/West Papua: Tapol urges restraint and an end to impunity as state terror set to escalate, 9/12/2000, at: http://www.gn.apc.org/tapol
50 About the content of the top-secret document, cf. Tapol, Secret operation launched to undermine and destroy the pro-independence movement in West Papua, 12/10/2001, http://www.gn.apc.org/tapol.
51 Cf. Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy, State Violence against the People: Portrait of Human Rights Conditions in West Papua, January to December 1999, Jayapura, 2000, p. 2.
52 Cf. ibid., p. 7.
53 Cf. Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy, The Bloodshed in Timika, Jayapura, 2000.
54 The full story of the violence, cf. The Office for Justice and Peace, Laporan Situasional Nabire, Kabupaten Nabire: Peristiwa 28 Februari 2000 (A report on the situation in Nabire regency: the February 28 incident, 2000). An investigative report signed by the three Church leaders, including the Bishop of Jayapura. The report has been submitted to the Governor, the military commander, the police chief, the chairperson of the Provincial Parliament in June 2000; cf. also Gerakan Papua Merdeka, pp. 34-35.
55 Cf. The Jakarta Post, 27/4/2000, p. 2.
56 Cf. Tapol, “West Papua: Wamena Tragedy a Provocation,” in: Tapol Bulletin Online 161, March/April 2001, available at: http://www.gn.apc.org/tapol; the full story of the Wamena violence and its political analyses, cf. also Human Rights Watch, Violence and Political Impasse in Papua, Vol. 13, No. 2 (C)-July 2001; Aaron Mannes, Armed Forces against Civilians: Witness Actions by Government of Indonesia Armed Forces against West Papuan Civilians, available at: http://www. koteka.net.
57 Cf. The Jakarta Post, 1/5/2001, p. 2.
58 Cf. Gerakan Papua Merdeka, pp. 35-36.
59 Cf. ibid., p. 36.
60 Cf. op. cit.
61 Cf. ibid., p. 40.
62 Cf. ibid., p. 41.
63 Cf. op. cit.
64 More detailed information about the abduction and assassination of They Hiyo Eluay, cf. Sem Karoba, Hans L. Gebze Cs, Papua Mengugat (Papua demands), Yogyakarta, 2002.
65 Cf. Gerakan Papua Merdeka, p. 42.
66 Cf. ibid., p. 42-44.
67 For detailed descriptions of tortures experienced by Papuans, cf. The Office for Justice and Peace, Hak-hak Asasi Manusia di Wilayah Paniai dan Tigi (Human Rights in the Regions of Paniai and Tigi), Jayapura, October 1998.
68 The detailed story of torture experienced by Jance Pekey, cf. The Office for Justice and Peace, Laporan Situasional Nabire (The report of the situation in Nabire), Jayapura June 2000.
69 Cf. Oswald Iten, Prison, Torture and Murder in Jayapura, West Papua: Twelve Days in an Indonesian Jail, available at: http://www.koteka.net. Oswald was arrested by the police due to his picture taking of the police brutality in Jayapura and put in the prison where two Papuans died. He was an eyewitness of torture committed by the Indonesian police in police detention resulting in the death of two Papuans.
70 Cf. Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy, Kasus Kematian Iskia Opur di Manokwari, Papua Barat, (The case of Iskia Opur’s death in Manokwari, West Papua), 14/12/2000.
71 Cf. Human Rights Watch, Violence and Political Impasse in Papua, July 2001.
72 Cf. Draft Law on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua in the form of a Self Governing Territory, Chapter XII, Article 41. I am referring here to the Draft of the Special Autonomy Law which was written by Papuan scholars and then submitted by the Governor of Papua to the Indonesian Parliament (DPR) and the Central Government for further discussion.
73 Cf. ibid., Art. 42.
back to contents
|Zurück zur Hauptseite||Watch Indonesia! e.V.||Back to Mainpage|