MIFEE: the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate

Full text

1
Human Rights in Papua
FI Bangkok
6th Floor, 2
Soi Thong Lor 25
Sukhumvit 55 Road
Bangkok 10110 THAILAND
T +66 27 12 79 76
bangkok@fi op.org
2010/2011

2
Human Rights in Papua 2010/2011
The following organizations have collaborated to the
Report:
Asian Human Rights Commission
Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS)
Mensen met een Missie
Peace B rigades In ternationa l
TAP OL
The Evangelical Christian Church in Papua (GKI-TP)
Watc h I ndo nes ia!
West Papua Netzwerk
The following persons have contributed to the report
in their personal capacities:
Dr. Remco van de Pas, The Right to Health in Tanah Papua in 2010,
Dr. Theodor Rathgeber, Indonesia’s Human Rights Obligations and
Recomme ndations
Edited by Franciscans International:
Francesca Restifo, International Advocacy Director
Budi Tjahjono, Asia Pacific Advocacy Officer
Silvia Palomba, Advocacy and Program Officer
FI would like to thank CORDAID for the financial support received for
the work on Papua
Layout & Design
Verl ag un d Age ntu r
Magdeburgstraße 11, 65510 Idstein, www.meinhardt.info
Idstein, November 2011
Co-Published by Asian Human Rights Commission
(AHRC):
Unit 701A, Westley Square, 48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
Tel e p ho n e : + ( 8 52) 26 98-63 39, Fax: +(8 52) 26 98-63 67,
Email: ahrc@ahrc.asia, Web: www.humanrights.asia
Printed by Clear-Cut Publishing and Printing Co.:
A1, 20/F, Fortune Factory Building,
40 Lee Chung Street, Chai Wan, Hong Kong
November 2011
ISBN: 978-962-8314-52-2 (Paperback Print)
ISBN: 978-962-8314-52-9 (PDF)
AHRC-PUB-003-2011

3
Human Rights in Papua 2010/2011

4
Introduction
Foreword 6
Section 1 – Indonesia’s Human Rights Obligations 10
1. 1 National and International Human Rights Standards
and Instruments Applicable in Indonesia 11
1. 2 Indonesia’s Compliance with International Human Rights Obligations 12
1. 3 Regional Human Rights Obligations 14
1. 4 Conclusions 15
Section 2 – Civil and Political Rights 15
2. 1 Freedom of Expression 15
2. 1. 1 Restrictions on International Organisations,
Representatives and Journalists in Papua 15
2. 1. 2 Freedom of Press 17
2. 1. 3 Demonstrations and Peaceful Protests 18
2. 1. 4 Makar Charges Put Dozens of Papuans Behind Bars 21
2. 2 Human Rights Defenders’ Situation in Papua 23
2. 3 Torture in West Papua 25
2. 4 Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary executions 28
Section 3 – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 30
3. 1. The Right to Health in Papua 30
3. 1. 1 Overview of Health and Disease Indicators in Papua 30
3. 1. 2 State’s Obligation to Fulfil the Right to Health 32
3. 1. 3 Right to Health of Indigenous Papuans 34
3. 1. 4 Conclusions 35
3. 2 MIFEE: The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate 36
3. 2. 1 Introduction 36
3. 2. 2 Land-grabbing – the Papua Context 36
3. 2. 3 Economic, social and cultural impacts of MIFEE 37
3. 2. 4 Security Concerns and the Potential for Conflicts 38
3. 2. 5 Grassroots Experiences of MIFEE 38
3. 2. 6 Conclusion 40
3. 3 Palm Oil in Papua 40
3. 3. 1 Land Grabbing and Marginalization of Indigenous Peoples 40

5
Section 4 - Vulnerable Groups 42
4. 1 Women’s Rights in Papua and West Papua 42
4. 1. 1 State Violence against Women 43
4. 1. 2 Domestic violence 43
4. 1. 3 Serial violence 44
4. 1. 4 Conditions Contributing to Violence against
Indigenous Women in Papua 44
4. 1. 5 Impact of Natural Resources Exploitation on Women’s Rights 44
4. 1. 6 HIV/Aids and Women 45
4. 2 Indigenous Peoples 46
4. 2. 1 Displacement 46
4. 2. 2 Land Rights 47
4. 2. 3 Indigenous Cultural Rights 49
4. 3 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Violations by Freeport Indonesia 53
Section 5 – Security Sector and Human Rights in Papua 54
5. 1 Background 54
5. 2 Implications of the presence of the Army on the
Human Rights Conditions in Papua 55
5. 3 Security (military) Policies, Politics,
and Challenges in Enforcing Human Rights 56
5. 4 Conclusion and Recommendations 56
Section 6 – Recommendations 57
6. 1 To the Government of Indonesia and its Institutions 57
6. 2 To the International Community 59
6. 3 To the European Union and its Members 59

6
Foreword
Since 2003, the Faith-based Network on West Papua (FBN) has supported the religious
leaders of Papua in their campaign “Papua, land of peace”.1 The project aims to create
a peaceful and just Papua where its indigenous population lives without fear and ex-
periences social equality, economic prosperity and the rule of law. In other words, a place
where human rights are guaranteed for all people regardless of their religious and eth-
nic background.
For decades, the indigenous people of Papua have been suffering under militarization,
human rights violations, exploitation and discrimination. In 1998, Indonesia entered a
reform and democratisation process which improved the human rights legislation and
the development of institutions. However, in Indonesia’s easternmost province the in-
digenous people of Papua remain subject to severe human rights violations committed
by Indonesian security forces and state authorities.
To da t e , t h e I n d on e si a n G ov e rn m en t b a re l y p r ov i d es a c ce s s fo r i nt e rn a t io n a l j o u rn a l is t s,
humanitarian aid and human rights organisations to Papua. Due to isolation from the
outside world, the human rights situation in Papua has remained undocumented for
decades.
Indigenous human rights defenders still face intimidation and harassment in their work
for justice and accountability. With the alleged killing in 2010 of the critical journalist
Ardiansyah Matra’is, the situation of human rights defenders deteriorated further.
In 2010, hundreds of indigenous people participated in peaceful demonstrations in the
cities of Papua demanding human rights, justice and accountability for human rights
violations. In July, the indigenous community returned Law No. 21/2001 on Special Au-
tonomy for Papua to the Indonesian Government as its regulations had barely been
implemented by the state. Despite improved legislation, a Human Rights Court and a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Papua have never become a reality.
While the perpetrators of torture and extrajudicial killings enjoy impunity, indigenous
Papuans making use of their civil and political rights are facing detention and conviction.
To date, the Indonesian Authorities in Papua employ the articles of the Indonesian
Criminal Code that deal with subversion and incitement against indigenous Papuans
who peacefully express their opinion in demonstrations, protests and publications. In
2010, critical Papuan voices were again put behind bars.
Economic and political interests in Papua remain the driving force behind the human
rights violations in Indonesia’s easternmost region. In August 2010, the Merauke Inte-
grated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) was launched in the Merauke Regency, Papua
Province, with the view to developing a plantation of 1.2 million hectares for cash-crops.
This development poses a threat to the economic, social and cultural survival of the
indigenous people in southern Papua. Violations of land rights and violations of Free
1 The term Papua here includes the Provinces of Papua and West Papua.

7
Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) are reported from numerous indigenous villages affected
by MIFEE and other areas of natural resources exploitation.
The Human Rights Report 2010/2011 by the Faith-based Network on West Papua (FBN)
documents social, political, economic, and cultural human rights violations against the
indigenous people of Papua in 2010/2011. It does not claim to be exhaustive as many
human rights violations in Papua remain unreported to date. The report aims at docu-
menting what we know is happening in Papua at present. Local, national and interna-
tional organizations and individuals provided their expertise on the human rights situ-
ation in Papua and made this compilation of articles possible. May it strengthen the
cause of the religious leaders in Papua to create a “Papua, land of peace.”
Kristina Neubauer
On behalf of Faith Based Network on West Papua
Demonstration in Abepura, West Papua Province in 2010

8
Ending Human Rights Abuses in Papua
2010 and 2011 have been particularly singular for the
indigenous Papuans who live in the Western half of the
Island of New Guinea. In 2010 episodes of torture
perpetrated against Indigenous Papuans were displayed
worldwide. Through shocking and horrific video images,
the entire world has discovered how the Indonesian Army
deliberately commits torture against Indigenous Papuans.
The Indonesian government’s policy of isolating Papua
from the rest of the world – not allowing access to
foreign journalists, international human rights workers,
researchers and diplomats – has not been able to cover
up the brutalities committed by members of the Army
against the Papuans. However, the 2010 torture episode
has not been the first case of torture committed by the
Indonesian security forces against Papuans, and it will not
likely be the last one either.
In fact, Papuans have suffered for a long time because of
the human rights abuses committed by Indonesian
authorities. Since Indonesia took over the territory of
Papua in 1963, the Indonesian Army has conducted at
least ten massive military operations against indigenous
Papuans. Papuans living in places where military
operations have been conducted have horrific stories to
tell about the abuses they have suffered. They describe,
for example, how they have watched their houses burning
down, their gardens and source of livelihoods being
destroyed. They give accounts of how they watched their
friends, acquaintances and family members being
intimidated, tortured, and killed during military
operations.
The government’s promise of justice is nothing more than
empty words for the simple fact that very few military
personnel have been held accountable for human rights
abuses committed against Papuans. Moreover,
perpetrators of abuse have been, at times, even recognized
as national heroes by the government. Papuans have
never heard any stories about the government’s success
in imprisoning human rights abusers.
Even if the perpetrators are identified and punished,
torture and other human rights violations will likely
continue in the future. The reason is that three new
battalions have been established in Papua, and several
Introduction
Map of Indonesia

9
new military district commands have been expanded.
Thousands of troops have also been deployed along the
border with the independent state of Papua New Guinea.
More human rights abuses are also expected to occur
because, not only do the security forces not consider
Papuans as Indonesian citizens, they do not even consider
them as human beings. Each indigenous Papuan is
suspected of being a separatist or a supporter of the
separatist movement that supposedly poses a threat to
Indonesia’s territorial integrity. As a consequence,
Indonesian troops deployed among Papuans consider
themselves to be among enemies of the Indonesian state.
They are instructed that their main duty is to maintain
the territorial integrity of Indonesian state, and therefore
eradicate separatism in Papua.
As a result of this, thousands of Papuans are believed to
have been victims of military operations conducted to
eradicate separatism. Many Papuans suffered from
maltreatment and various other forms of abuse
committed by security forces. Past experience
demonstrate that any Papuan can easily be killed by the
military or police anytime and anywhere in Papua, based
on the suspicion of being a separatist.
The central government should put in place policies to
prevent its troops from committing further human rights
violations against civilians in Papua. Documenting past
cases of human rights abuse is also a necessary step so
that the same violations are not repeated in future.
Many parties in Indonesia have realized that more human
rights violations are likely to occur in Papua unless the
root causes of Papuan separatism are resolved. The
government and the indigenous people of Papua should
thus engage in a constructive dialogue to identify these
root causes and settle them without unnecessary
bloodshed. The government should take the initiative by
showing the international community its willingness and
commitment to settle the Papuan separatism issue
through dialogue with Papuans.
Dr. Neles Tebay
is the Director of the Catholic College of Philosophy and
Theology STFT (Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Teologi)
“Fajar Timur” in Abepura, Papua, and the Coordinator of the
Papua Peace Network JDP (Jaringan Damai Papua)

10
United Nations Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland
The country has gone from a dictatorial regime to a
democratic form of government in which all public
institutions are formally bound by the Constitution,
human rights principles, the rule of law and criteria for
good governance, and international law.2 The
Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court form the
judicial branch of the government. While the former has
the power to determine the constitutionality of the laws
(Undang-Undang), the latter has the power of judicial
review over them. Administrative Courts are the forum
in which to challenge public administrative decrees
(officially issued by public administration offices) which
contain directives for single citizens or legal entities.
3
The
official inclination towards the establishment of a
democratic and constitutional state which guarantees
fundamental rights to its citizens and protects them is
evident. It is therefore not surprising that Freedom House
4
has testified to a fundamental change from a ‘Not Free
Country’ (NF) to a ‘Partly Free Country’ (PF) in 1998–99,
and finally to a ‘Free Country’ (F) in 2006.5 Among the
members of the Association of South East Asia Nations
(ASEAN), Indonesia is currently the only one in the
category ‘Free Country.’
The Indonesian government has expressed its willingness
to properly address human rights issues, in accordance
with its membership of the Association of South East
Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, Indonesia’s primary
approach to achieving stability appears to be
predominantly based on national security, addressing
issues such as the war against terror and drugs.
Consequently, the organisation of the public order follows
the lead of this regulatory policy.
The reality in the country is quite different from what the
norms currently in force establish and the Courts uphold.
Impunity is widespread for the killings and massacres
committed during Soeharto’s dictatorship; enforced
disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings are still
particularly frequent in West Papua; the murder of Munir
Said Thalib, prominent Indonesian human rights defender,
is still unsolved; non-Muslim religious communities, such
as the Ahmadiyyah, are frequently threatened; the
freedom of expression is not sufficiently guaranteed.
Lastly, January 2010, the President of Indonesia – Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono – promoted the General Lieutenant
Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin as Vice Minister on Defence, despite
Section 1 – Indonesia’s Human Rights Obligations
2 See Art. 2 of the ASEAN Charter of 2007 that calls for the adherence to democratic values, respect for human rights, and fundamental
freedoms (ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations).
3 The Indonesian Legal System and Legal Research By Alamo D. Laiman, Dewi Savitri Reni, Ronald Lengkong, Sigit Ardiyanto, GlobaLex, at:
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/Indonesia.htm#supremecourt (last visited 8 August 2011).
4 Freedom House is an independent INGO working for freedom and democracy around the globe. The watchdog publishes an annual
survey on the development of freedom in 193 countries worldwide.
5 See Freedom House, Freedom in the World Country Ratings 1972–2011; http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439.

11
solid allegations that the General was involved in the
1998 rebellions where severe human rights violations
were perpetrated.
The judiciary is facing corruption and pressure from
political sources. The Constitutional Court is increasingly
turning to conservative interpretations of fundamental
norms that give priority to the state’s interests and
maintains the political legacy of the previous regime.6
Foreign media, churches, and NGOs are barred from West
Papua and the government justifies this prohibition by
claiming that the area is too volatile due to unrest caused
by the separatist movement and to the difficulties of
implementing the Papuan Autonomy Law.
In addition, military institutions are exempted from
civilian rules. For instance, in conflict regions such as West
Papua, military institutions have built up parallel
structures which are not consistent with the rule of law.
The Rule of Law is generally understood as the way to
preserve the power of the central state and not as the
tool to guarantee the citizens from the abuses perpetrated
by the state. As a consequence, human rights are
perceived as an obstacle to national regulatory policies.
However, thanks to civil society’s pressure, human rights
institutions and mechanisms have been established.7
What are Indonesia’s human rights obligations vis-a-vis
international law?
The term obligation used in the following text is to be
understood as a binding legal provision deriving from an
international instrument – such as a treaty, covenant or
convention – enacted by Indonesian law (e. g. Act No. 24
of 20028).
1.1 National and International Human
Rights Standards and Instruments
Applicable in Indonesia
Among the international human rights instruments,
consideration must be given to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), the Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families (ICRMW), the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CPD), and the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (CED).9
In relation to national instruments, a number of laws
dealing with human rights are to be mentioned: Law No.
68/1958 on the ratification of the Convention of Women’s
Political Rights, Law No. 7/1984 on the ratification of
CEDAW, Presidential Decree No. 36/1990 on the
ratification of CRC, Law No. 5/1998 on the ratification of
CAT, Law No. 9/1998 on Freedom of Speech, Act No. 29 of
1999 on the ratification of ICERD, Law No. 39/1999 on
Human Rights, Law No. 26/2000 on the Human Rights
Court, and Law No. 21/2000 on Labour Unions.
The National Commission for Human Rights of Indonesia
(Komnas-HAM) received an “A” status accreditation in
2001,10 and it has been confirmed in March 2007.
Nevertheless, a number of UN Human Rights Bodies – the
Committee against Torture (CAT) in 2001, the Committee
on the Rights of the Child, in 2004, and the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in
2007 – have expressed concerns regarding the insufficient
impartiality and independence of Komnas-HAM. The
Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on
the situation of human rights defenders was concerned
about the ineffectiveness of Komnas-HAM’s power of
inquiry and the lack of a mandate to investigate common
human rights violations.
On governance, the relevant national instruments are Law
No. 20/1982 on basic principles of the National Defence
and Security of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 1/1998
on the amendment of Law No. 20/1982 concerning basic
principles of the National Defence and Security of the
Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 2/1988 on the Indonesian
Armed Forces, Law No. 26/1997 on the discipline of the
Indonesian Armed Forces, Law No. 22/1999 on the local
governments, and Act No 14 of 2008 on the transparency
of public information (Freedom of Information Act). The
6 See e. g. FIDH / Imparsial / KontraS [eds.] (2011); Shadows and Clouds. Human Rights in Indonesia – shady legacy, uncertain future, or
International Crisis Group and its assessment on the new and controversial intelligence bill in July 2011.
7 Ibid.
8 Act No. 24 provides that treaties relating to national security, human rights and the environment have to be ratified by an Act of
Parliament while others can be ratified by Presidential Decree.
9 See the status of ratification via http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en.
10 The International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC), at http://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/nhri/pages/nhrimain.aspx.

12
right to access information is further guaranteed by Act
No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights (Article 14), and Act No.
23 of 1997 on Environmental Management (Article 5 and
10(h)).11 Conversely, Law 15/2003 on anti-terrorism
severely impairs human rights activities.12
On resource management, the following legal instruments
foster a Rule of Law approach; Law No. 5/1960 on basic
principles of the agrarian sector; Law No. 21/1964 on the
courts on Land Reform; Law No. 11/1967 on basic
principles of mining; Law No. 22/1974 concerning
irrigation matters; Law No. 23/1997 on the environmental
management; Law No. 41/1999 on forestry; Law No.
25/2000 on the National Development Programme; Law
No. 22/2001 on oil and gas; Law No. 25/1999 on the
balance of financial budget between the central and the
local governments; and Law No. 2/2002 on the Indonesian
National Police.13
1.2 Indonesia’s Compliance with Internatio-
nal Human Rights Obligations
Many of the principles of the UDHR are included in the
Indonesian Constitution (Preamble, Article 26, Article 271
paragraph 1 and 2, Article 28, Article 29 paragraph 2,
Article 31 paragraph 1) as well as in the People’s
Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree No.XVII/MPR/1998
on Human Rights (with annex 2 on the Universal
Declaration).
Indonesia has also ratified many of the major international
human rights core treaties. In October 2005 it ratified the
ICESCR and the ICCPR, however, Indonesia placed its
reservation on the right to self-determination, affirming
that this right does not apply to peoples within a
sovereign nation-state (such as the Moluccas, Aceh or
West Papua). Indonesia has still not ratified the Optional
Protocols to the ICCPR establishing complaint mechanisms
for victims of abuses.
Notwithstanding Indonesia’s international obligations,
threats to the right of freedom of religion and belief are
frequent in the country. This is due to the recurrent
clashes between fundamentalist Muslims and other
religious communities, to the proliferation of laws limiting
the rights of religious minorities, and the failure to
prosecute those who attack religious minorities or
infringe on their rights to freedom of religion. All the
minority communities – Muslim (Ahmadiyyah), Christians,
Hindus, and Buddhists – have faced increasing
discrimination and violent attacks. According to the
Communion of Churches in Indonesia, there have been
430 attacks against churches over the past six years. The
Ahmadiyyah documented 183 attacks against their
villages, mosques and houses since President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono issued a decree against Ahmadiyyah
in June 2008.14
The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) also expressed
its concern on the legal distinctions made between
different religions. Men and women of different religions
are still facing difficulties in registering their marriages
and their children are not provided with birth certificates.
The Government has been taking religious community
leaders into custody under the pretext of protection and
later charging them with blasphemy.15 Attacks and threats
against Ahmadiyah are even justified by law.16 Those
incidents reflect a pattern of religious discrimination and
the complicity of state institutions in acts of religious
persecution.
With regard to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Indonesia has placed a
reservation in relation to Article 22: “The Government (…)
does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article
22 and takes the position that disputes relating to the
interpretation and application of the [Convention] which
cannot be settled through the channel provided for in the
said article, may be referred to the International Court of
Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the
dispute.”
17
The Indonesian government submitted its first
11 See http://dte.gn.apc.org/ilaw.pdf.
12 Ibid.
13 See http://www.hampapua.org/skp/legislation.html.
14 See recently Andreas Harsono in The Jakarta Globe, June 27, 2011, On Faith, Indonesia Still Unenlightened. Andreas Harsono is a
researcher for the Asia division at Human Rights Watch; also the latest urgent action by Amnesty International on the congregation of
the Taman Yasmin Indonesian Christian Church (Gereja Kristen Indonesia, GKI) in Bogor, West Java; UA: 212/11 Index: ASA 21/017/2011
Indonesia of July 2011.
15 See document No. A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/2.
16 See the Joint Ministerial Decree (SKB – Surat Keputusan Bersama) on June 8, 2008, between the Ministry of Religious Aairs, the Home
Ministry and the Attorney General, which limit the freedom of Ahmadiyah to spread their religion and to practice it openly.
17 Article 22 states: “Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention,
which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of
settlement.” See http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en.

13
report to the UN Committee (CERD) in 2006, though the
report was due six years before. Independent reports have
also been submitted, including one by 11 Non
Governmental Organisation (NGOs). They dealt with –
among other issues – the threat posed to the survival of
indigenous peoples in Kalimantan by oil palm plantations
proposed by the government.18 CERD expressed concern
about this fact in its concluding observations.19 In March
2009, within its ‘Early Warning Procedure’, CERD conveyed
its concern to the Indonesian government in relation to
the draft regulations on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) for being
incompatible with indigenous rights.20
With respect to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW), Indonesia placed a reservation to Article 29,
relating to the interpretation and application of the
Convention itself. The CEDAW Committee expressed
concern about the draft law on gender equality and
discriminatory provisions in the Marriage Act 1974, and
called for the removal of family and spousal consent
requirements in the areas of women’s employment and
health.
Although Indonesia ratified the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT) in 1988, the Indonesian Penal Code, still
does not criminalize nor define torture; it only recognizes
“ill-treatment”. The CAT Committee has expressed concern
about the large number of allegations of torture and ill-
treatment committed by police forces, especially the mobile
police units (Brimob), the army and paramilitary groups
reportedly linked to authorities, and, in general, in areas of
armed conflict. The Optional Protocol to CAT, which
provides an international inspection system for places of
detention, has not been ratified by Indonesia.
All these international instruments establish states’
obligation to submit regular reports to the relevant UN
Committee on how the rights are being protected.
Indonesia submitted most of the reports with a delay.
Indonesia signed but did not ratify the following
instruments: the Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families (signed in September 2004); the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (signed in March
2007); and the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (signed in
September 2010).21
In relation to the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
standards, Indonesia ratified ILO Convention No. 29 on
Forced or Compulsory Labour, Convention No. 87
concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organize, Convention No. 98 on the Application
of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to Bargain
Collectively, Convention No. 100 on Equal Remuneration
for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value,
Convention No. 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour by
Act No. 19 (1999),Convention No. 138 on the Minimum
Age for Admission to Employment by Act No. 20 (1999),
Convention No. 111 on Discrimination in Respect of
Employment and Occupation by Act No. 21 (1999), and
Convention No. 182 on the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labour.
The ILO commended the Indonesian government on its
decision to ratify the eight key labour conventions
because it is the first country in the Asia-Pacific to do so.22
Among the relevant international human rights
instruments, Indonesia has not ratified the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, although
Indonesia voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007 by the UN
General Assembly, the Government noted that the rights
in this Declaration did not apply in the context of
Indonesia. Indonesia, also, did not ratify ILO Convention
169 on Indigenous and Tribal People.
Especially relevant in the Indonesian context is the UN
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the
UN General Assembly in December 1998.
23
Although this
18 See “Indonesian NGO Alternative Report_ICERD. Breaking the smoke-screen of Racial Discrimination and Impunity in Indonesia” via
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/NGO-Indonesia.
19 See CERD, Concluding Observations, document No.CERD/C/IDN/CO/3, 15 August, 2007; at http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/indonesia_t4_
cerd_71.pdf.
20 See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/early_warning/Indonesia130309.pdf.
21 See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/IDIndex.aspx.
22 (Elimination of forced and compulsory labour (Conventions 29 and 105), abolition of child labour (Conventions 138 and 182), elimination
of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (Conventions 100 and 111), and freedom of association and collective
bargaining (Conventions 87 and 98). See http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,3343,en_39048427_39049464_42744852_1_1_1_1,00.
html; also document No. A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/2.
23 See General Assembly Resolution A/RES/53/144.

14
is not a binding document, it generated high expectations
towards state’s performance, and the corresponding
mandate of the Special Procedures pushed the Indonesian
government to investigate allegations of abuses and to
strengthen the protection for human rights defenders.
Nevertheless, the list of violations against them is still
long, including extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary
executions, enforced disappearances, torture, ill-treatment,
instances of excessive use of force, arbitrary detention,
restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly,
association and movement and labelling of defenders as
separatists and stigmatisation, particularly in West Papua.
Frequently, law enforcement authorities harass defenders
and restrict their access to victims and sites of human
rights violations, again, particularly in West Papua. There
is an absolute lack of accountability for police, military
and intelligence services.24
Although Indonesia has not yet issued standing invitations
to special procedures mandate holders,
25
some mandate
holders have been able to visit the country anyway and
report to the UN Human Rights Council on the situation
of human rights defenders (in 2008),
26
on torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
(2008),27 on the human rights of migrants (2007),28 and on
the independence of judges and lawyers (2003).29
The Special Rapporteur on torture has pointed out that
his fact-finding mission would only have been fully
effective if he could have enjoyed unrestricted freedom
of inquiry, freedom to visit places of detention without
prior announcement, and to privately interview detainees.
In his report, he regretted that in a number of instances
his access to places of detention had been compromised,
including his ability to carry out private interviews with
detainees.
Among the mandate holders, who are yet to visit
Indonesia are the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, due to visit since 1996; the Special
Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, due since 2002; the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, due since
2004, and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances, due since 2006.
24 See FIDH / Imparsial / KontraS (2011); op. cit.
25 On Special Procedures see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm.
26 See document No. A/HRC/7/28/Add. 2.
27 See document No. A/HRC/7/3/Add. 7.
28 See document No. A/HRC/4/24/Add. 3.
29 See document No. E/CN.4/2003/65/Add. 2.
30 See document No. A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/2.
31 See full documentation at http://www.upr-info.org/-Indonesia,31-.html.
In general, Indonesia has replied to about 40 per cent of
the communications directed to the government. Between
1 January 2004 and 31 December 2007 64 communications
were sent to Indonesia and they concerned particular
groups as well as 119 individuals of which 32 were
women. While Indonesia replied to 25 communications,
it did not answer to any of the 12 questionnaires sent by
the Special Rapporteurs.30 Indonesia was one of the first
countries to be reviewed under UPR.31
1. 3 Regional Human Rights Obligations
At the regional level, the 2007 ASEAN Charter – which
Indonesia ratified in October 2008 – must be considered.
Article 2 of the Charter calls for adherence to democratic
values, respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, as well as adherence to international law.
Article 14 provides for an ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights. To date, however, the
ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of
the Rights of Migrant Workers has been the only regional
instrument that refers to the international human rights
framework.
In October 2009, within the ASEAN framework, the
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)
was created, followed by the Commission on the
Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and
Children (ACWC), in April 2010.
The main criticism of the establishment of the AICHR is
that the Commission does not have the competence to
carry out investigations on its own and eventually
sanction human rights violations and/or non adherence
to its decisions.
However, the existence of such an institution represents
progress at the regional level, as it might foster respect
for human rights throughout ASEAN members, including
Indonesia. In this respect, AICHR shall support ASEAN
members in ratifying and implementing the relevant
human rights conventions, and it shall provide guidelines
for the working group which will draw up the draft of the
ASEAN Declaration on human rights.
Based on the ASEAN framework, about 130 civil society
organisations and movements of Southeast Asian

15
32 See Christian Gerlach (2010); Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press; also in
German (2011); Extrem gewalttätige Gesellschaften – Massengewalt im 20. Jahrhundert. DVA, München.
33 The Jakarta Post, 04/25/2009.
34 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/07/ri-still-open-foreign-ngos-papua.html.
35 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/09/indonesian-democracy-papua.
36 http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/traverser11/news/al-jazeera-censored/.
countries met in Jakarta in May 2011 in relation to the
study on Corporate Social Responsibility conducted by
AICHR. The meeting discussed the current performance
and corresponding guidelines on mining activities in the
region.
1. 4 Conclusions
The recent progress made by the Indonesian government
shows an encouraging tendency to move toward the rule
of law and democratic procedures.
The next institutional challenge will be trying to adapt
the administration, its doctrine, culture and curriculum
to the Rule of Law and, in particular, to international
human rights standards. An additional effort is also
needed to accordingly prepare the future administrative
employees working as security services and/or public
servants.
As well, the general population needs to continue
engaging with rule of law and human rights principles.
The recent Gerlach’s publication titled “Extremely Violent
Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century” , with
special reference to the 1965 and 1966 killings of people
identified as “Communists” in Indonesia, has shown the
indispensable need to draw attention and raise awareness
on the issue of mass murders.32 Consequently, the
commitment of the civil society to demand the rule of
law, democracy, and human rights needs to be supported
as it is an invaluable instrument in challenging the inertia
of government institutions and the entrenched attitudes
that have endured from the previous regime.
Section 2 – Civil and Political Rights
2. 1 Freedom of Expression
2. 1. 1 Restrictions on International Organisations,
Representatives and Journalists in Papua
Humanitarian organizations and international bodies are
known to face many more hurdles implementing their
programs in ‘sensitive areas’ like Papua compared to other
areas in Indonesia. In January 2011, the international
organization Peace Brigades International (PBI) closed its
operations in Papua and withdrew from Indonesia
altogether. After working for six years in Indonesia’s
easternmost provinces, the legal framework and visa
regulations among other factors made it impossible for
PBI to effectively protect human rights defenders at risk.
Two years before, in April 2009, the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was ordered by the
Foreign Ministry to close its offices in Papua and Aceh
because the “… organization had been operating in the
two provinces without proper legal documentation and
had failed to comply with new official operational
procedure.33“
Likewise, other international humanitarian organisations
have experienced severe difficulties in conducting their
work in Papua and have been pressured to close their
programmes. The state uses different means to discredit
and limit international organizations working in Papua,
including the manipulation of the bureaucracy to delay
and disrupt NGOs’ operations and accusations of
supporting separatism. As a result, international
organizations are asked to leave or decide to withdraw
due to heavy limitations and restrictions. While the
Foreign Ministry maintains that it is open to foreign
organizations working in Papua, strings are attached: they
are forbidden from supporting political work and must
focus on humanitarian projects.34 In this context, the
definition of political work is determined by the state and
international humanitarian organisations are easily
accused of supporting separatism despite their non-
partisanship.
International journalists are usually denied permission to
visit Papua. Baudouin Koenig, a French journalist, was
arrested, interrogated and deported after filming a
peaceful demonstration in Jayapura, in July 2010
35
. In April
2010, Al Jazeera was pressured to pull back its
documentary ‘Pride of Warriors’ which broaches the issue
of military presence and human rights abuses in Papua.
36

16
Diplomats are usually “recommended” by the Indonesian
authorities not to visit the country’s easternmost
provinces. Günther Nooke, at the time the German Federal
Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and
Humanitarian Aid, was denied access to Papua in 2009.
a. The Example of the Peace Brigades International (PBI)
Following a request from a local human rights
organization, PBI conducted an exploratory mission to
Papua in 2003 and one year later it opened its first office
in Jayapura, capital of Papua Province. In 2005, a second
office was opened in Wamena, Jayawijaya District.
The international volunteer organization provided
protective services to human rights defenders at risk and
held workshops in the field of peace education. All local
partners of PBI were legally registered and strongly
committed to non-violence and human rights. PBI
frequently met with government representatives and the
security personnel and reported regularly on its meetings
and activities in accordance with PBI’s principles of
transparency and non-partisanship.
However, allegations arose that PBI was favouring
separatists and PBI’s partner organizations were part of
the secessionist movement. In Papua, these allegations
of separatism against civil society organizations are a
common strategy used to criminalize and discredit
individuals, organizations and their activities. Allegations
against PBI’s partner organisations have never been
proven. A remark by a police officer in the presence of PBI
volunteers stating that the EU, together with PBI, follows
a hidden agenda of supporting the independence
movement in West Papua typifies the general mistrust
that foreigners have to face when working in Papua.
It is likely that this distrust contributed to the refusal to
issue travel permits (surat jalan) for PBI volunteers, in
January 2010. These travel permits are needed by
foreigners in Papua and West Papua in order to be able
to visit the regions outside the capital cities of Jayapura
and Manokwari. In no other provinces in Indonesia are
such travel permits required. Without these documents
the work of PBI volunteers in Papua became impossible.
As a consequence, the Wamena office was closed in early
2010.
Furthermore, under new legislation enacted following the
tsunami in 2004, now a foreign worker has to be
supervised by two Indonesian nationals at all times. A
multi-ministerial clearing house comprising
representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs,
Home Affairs, the Indonesian Military and Police
Intelligence, the Ministry of Human Rights and Justice,
and the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism questioned PBI’s national staff and
other international NGOs working in Papua have also
been obliged to undergo this process which is not
conducted in a transparent manner.37 These measures
severely restricted PBI’s work and were leading factor in
the project’s decision to withdraw from Indonesia.
b. Silence of the International Community
Indonesia is the world’s third most populous democracy,
it has the world’s biggest moderate Islamic population,
and its importance at the international level is growing
rapidly for economic (it is rich in natural resources) and
political (fight against terrorism) reasons.
However, it seems that the problems affecting Papua – its
largest and easternmost province, now divided into two
provinces, West Papua and Papua – and the limited access
granted to journalists and international organizations are
addressed only superficially or they are not addressed at
all by the international community. The topic is perceived
as potentially damaging to fruitful relationships with the
Indonesian Government, and detrimental to economic
interests and cooperation agreements.
International organizations facing restrictions working in
Papua often decide not to apply public pressure fearing
a negative backlash as a result.
For instance, in 2010, in Papua, the United States officially
resumed cooperation with Kopassus, the Special Forces
of the Indonesian military allegedly responsible for severe
human rights abuses in Papua, Aceh and Timor.
New large scale projects – such as the Merauke Integrated
Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) involving a variety of
foreign investors, or the US $900 million project led by
the German firm Ferrostaal AG, in West Papua – are
examples of the growing opportunities to invest in Papua.
Such large scale projects might further threaten
democracy, community participation, and sustainable
development in this region.
c. Impacts in Papua
Despite the progress, the Papuan human rights
community is doubtful of the authenticity of the
government’s commitment to human rights. For instance,
the Alliance of Independent Journalists – AJI (Alliansi
37 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/07/ri-still-open-foreign-ngos-papua.html.

17
Journalis Independen) criticizes the virtual ban placed on
foreign media operations in West Papua.38 Members of
the National Human Rights Commission – Komnas HAM
(Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia) welcome the
presence and work of international human rights
organizations and their support of local NGOs, and former
local partner organisations of PBI stress the importance
of an international presence of human rights
organizations in Papua. However, limited foreign funds
for local human rights projects negatively affect their
work and sustainability.
The current situation gives rise to certain questions. Why
does the Indonesian Government place restrictions on
international observers, donor organizations, and
international NGOs if there is nothing to hide in Papua?
Why are human rights abuses given such little attention
in Papua?
With the current restrictions, the situation of Papuan
people remains virtually invisible to the rest of the world,
except for information that emerges from underground
and informal reporting. This might also have a negative
influence on a peaceful solution to the problems affecting
Papua by fuelling the grievances of Papuan civil society
towards the central Government and its approach to
Papua.
2. 1. 2 Freedom of Press
Even though Indonesia is praised for its high level freedom
of press in South East Asia, the reality of the situation
does not always reflect this. In Indonesia, the freedom of
press seems to deteriorate each year. If we compare the
statistics of “Reporters without borders” we can see that
while in 2002 Indonesia was ranked 57th in the World
Press Freedom Index, in 2010, the position of the country
slipped to 117th out of 178 countries listed. The reasons
for this decline are reportedly due to outdated laws
against the press, the killing of two journalists, and the
intimidation practices against numerous others.39
In particular, in remote Indonesian regions, such as Papua,
critical journalists are subject to intimidation and threats.
Journalists reporting on corruption, environmental
destruction, and various forms of human rights violations
are at risk. A prominent example is the case of Ardiansyah
Matra’is, in 2010.
a. The Killing of Ardiansyah Matra’is
On 30 July 2010, 06:30am, the corpse of the journalist
Ardiansyah Matra’is (25) was found in Maro River, Merauke
Regency, Papua Province. Before his death, Matra’is
reported on illegal logging carried out by military officers,
the upcoming controversial local elections in Merauke
Regency, and the controversial investment project MIFEE
(Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate). According
to his family and colleagues, Matra’is received threatening
Short Message Service (SMS) on his cell phone and he
had been followed by unidentified persons in the weeks
before his death.
Matra’is worked for the national television station ANTV,
the Papuan magazine Jubi, and the local TV station
Merauke TV. He was kidnapped in 2009, allegedly
because of his investigation leading to the disclosure of
the military’s involvement in the illegal logging in
Keerom Regency, Papua Province. Before and after
38 http://blogaji.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/aji-soal-pembatasan-pers-asing-di-papua/ Pembatasan pers asing di Papua, 2006.
39 See Reporters Without borders: 2010 World Press Freedom Index. Asia-Pacifi c Area; The Alliance of Independent Journalists: The threat
from within. 2010 Annual Report of the Alliance of Independent Journalists.
Demonstration in Jayapura, Papua Province, 2010, demanding a referendum

18
Matra’is death, other local journalists also reported
having received threatening SMS, such as the following:
“To cowardly journalists, never play with fire if you do
not want to be burned. If you still want to make a living
on this land, do not do weird things”. The messages also
pointed out that Papuan journalists critical of the
government would be killed and “no action will be taken
by the police or military”. A letter allegedly written with
blood was placed outside the house of another journalist
in Merauke.40
Indonesian and international human rights organisations
suspect that Matra’is was killed by state actors due to his
investigative work. The police’s findings about the cause
of his death remain controversial. While the police in
Merauke report his death to be an accident or a suicide,
the police headquarters in Jakarta affirmed the opposite
saying that Matra’is body bears signs of violence caused
before his death. The investigation carried out by the
Indonesian Alliance of Independent Journalists – AJI
(Aliansi Jurnalis Independen) also confirms that Matra’is
had been subjected to physical abuse before his death.41
While Indonesian NGOs ask for further investigations into
Matra’is death and for the prosecution of the perpetrators,
the investigation of the police seems to have come to a
halt.
The case of Ardiansyah Matra’is is typical of a pattern of
violence and intimidation against investigative journalists
in Indonesia, in particular in remote areas such as Papua.
The Indonesian Government should guarantee the safety
of journalists in Papua and guarantee the freedom of the
press as a crucial pillar of democracy.42
b. International Journalists in Papua
Another matter of concern is the tight limitations
imposed on international journalists in the Indonesian
provinces of Papua and West Papua. While foreign
journalists can obtain permission for most of the other
regions of Indonesia, access to Papua remains strictly
limited. International journalists receiving access to Papua
are reportedly followed and restrained in their work.
In May 2010, the French journalist Baudouin Koenig
was arrested by the Indonesian Police for filming a
peaceful demonstration in the city of Jayapura, Papua.
Koenig was in possession of a journalist visa which
would have allowed him to report from almost all
regions in Indonesia, including the Provinces of Papua
and West Papua. While Koenig was able to report on
sensitive issues such as the killing of communists,
sharia law, terrorism and corruption in other parts of
the country, he was arrested and expelled from
Papua due to the fact that he was recording a
demonstration.43
In February 2010, relatives and colleagues of the deceased
Australian journalist Mark Worth called for the re-opening
of the investigation about the journalist’s death in Papua.
Mark Worth was found dead in a hotel room in Sentani
City, Papua Province, on 15 January 2004, and the cause
of death was reported to be pneumonia. Worth had
reported for more than 15 years on the Papuan
independence struggle and his documentaries have been
widely published in the Australian media. Strangely
enough, Worth died two days after the ABC announced
the forthcoming premiere of his documentary “Land of
the Morning Star”. His death is considered suspicious by
many.44
In terms of transparency and democracy, the Indonesian
Government should provide access for international
journalists to visit Papua and West Papua as it does
provide access to other regions in the country. The
freedom of press should not be stopped at Papua’s front-
door.
2. 1. 3 Demonstrations and Peaceful Protests
During 2010, the Faith-based Network on West Papua
(FBN) noted a further increase of peaceful
demonstrations, protests and rallies organized by
indigenous Papuans to express their concern about
social, economic, environmental, and political situations
affecting their homeland. These protests mainly focused
on the failure of Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy
for Papua. Notwithstanding the purpose of the law, the
marginalisation of indigenous Papuans has been further
exacerbated and it has led to even greater dissatisfaction
on the part of indigenous communities toward the state.
Different parts of Papuan society demand the
establishment of a constructive dialogue with the
central government, even if it requires international
mediation, in order to solve the ongoing problems in
Papua. Other groups, however, still reject the possibility
40 Reporters Without Borders: Harassment and threats. How was investigative reporter pushed to kill himself?, 6 August 2010.
41 Jubi 05. 11. 10: 100 hari kematian Ardiansyah Matra’is.
42 See also Asian Human Rights Commission: The State of Human Rights in Indonesia in 2010, pg 6 to 9.
43 Koenig, Baudouin: Why does Indonesian democracy stop at Papua? In: guardian.co.uk, 09. 06. 10; Radio Australia 28. 05. 10; Antara News
25. 05. 10.
44 Australian Associated Press and The Sydney Morning Herald, 26. 02. 10.

19
of dialogue and demand a referendum to define the
political status of Papua.
The indigenous protestors have repeatedly drawn public
attention to the ongoing and unresolved human rights
violations in Papua. They demand the investigation and
prosecution of those responsible for torture and
extrajudicial killings of indigenous Papuans, they call for
the end of institutionalised impunity in Papua, and they
seek the establishment of a Human Rights Court and a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as already provided
for by Law No. 21/ 2001 on Special Autonomy. Further
requests regard the closure of the Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc. mine in Timika, compensations in
cases of land grabbing, the regularisation of the migration
fluxes to Papua, the recognition of the rights of the
indigenous Papuans, and the demilitarization of Papua.
Though the Special Autonomy Law 21/2001 permits
symbols of Papuan identity, the Morning Star Flag is often
interpreted as a separatist flag and, as such, is prohibited
under Article 6 of Governmental Regulation 77/2007.
Papuans carrying the Morning Star Flag to peaceful
demonstrations risk being arrested and sentenced for
treason. In 2010, numerous indigenous Papuans were
arrested and put on trial because of the use of the
Morning Star Flag during peaceful protests (see in detail
chapter 2.12).
The majority of the demonstrations and protests held by
indigenous Papuans are peaceful and include prayers and
songs, however they are always kept under tight
surveillance by the police and military forces and the
protestors are subject to intimidation, ill-treatment and
arbitrary detention by the Indonesian security forces.
Overview of the protests and demonstrations that
occurred in 2010:
pOn 27 January, several hundred Papuan people
reportedly took part in a demonstration in the city of
Timika, Papua Province, demanding a referendum on
the political status of West Papua. The demonstrators
also expressed their support for two international
support groups for Papuans, the London-based
International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP)
and the Brussels-based International Lawyers for West
Papua (ILWP).45
pOn 22 February, several hundred Papuan people
reportedly took part in a peaceful demonstration in the
city of Jayapura, Papua Province, calling for an end of
repression. In front of the Papua legislative assembly
DPRP (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua) the protestors
demanded the demilitarization of Papua, an immediate
release of all political prisoners and an end to extra-
judicial killings and impunity in Papua.46
pOn 18 March, several hundred Papuan students
reportedly took part in a demonstration in Jayapura,
Papua Province, calling for US-President Barack Obama’s
attention to the conflict in Papua. The demonstration
was held at the campus of Cenderawasih University and
in front of the Papua legislative assembly under tight
police surveillance. 47
pOn 22 March, the Indonesian Police forcefully broke
up a peaceful demonstration in Jayapura, Papua
Province. The demonstration was organized by the West
Papua National Committee KNPB (Komite Nasional
Papua Barat) and requested US-President Barack Obama
to be informed about the problems in Papua before his
planned visit to Indonesia. The organizers reportedly
had obtained a police permit for the demonstration.
Nevertheless, the police reportedly fired warning shots
to disperse the crowd and arrested 15 Papuans. All but
two were later released. Mara Koyoga and Linus Pagawe
were charged for alleged possession of “sharp
implements” under Law 12/1951 regarding possession of
weapons. The mass arrests were condemned by the
Deputy Chairman of the Provincial Legislative Assembly
DPRP, Yehuda Gobay, who said that repressive actions by
the police have become a tradition when Papuans are
exercising their freedom of expression.48
pIn regard to President Barack Obama’s visit to
Indonesia, peaceful demonstrations were also held in
the cities of Sorong, Manokwari, Wamena and Serui on
22 March. The demands of the protestors included the
withdrawal of organic and non-organic troops from
Papua, the closing of the Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc. mine and a review of the so-called “Act of Free
Choice”. The demonstration in Manokwari occurred
reportedly under strict police surveillance.49
45 Jakarta Post, 28. 01. 10; West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT): West Papua Report, February 2010.
46 West Papua Netzwerk (WPN): West Papua Rundbrief Nr. 49, April 2010, pg. 7; WPAT: West Papua Report, March 2010.
47 Tabloid Jubi Online, 19 March 2010: Mahasiswa Uncen Demonstrasi, Kuliah ditiadakan.
48 WPN: E-Informationsbrief 29 March 2010; WPAT: West Papua Report, April 2010; Bintang Papua 23 March 2010 (abridged in translation by
TAPOL).
49 See above.

20
pOn 22 April, Indonesian security forces violently broke
up a peaceful demonstration in the city of Manokwari,
West Papua Province. A video on Youtube shows
members of the Indonesian Police, the Mobile Police
Brigade (Brimob) and the Special Detachment 88
(Indonesian anti-terror squad) beating and kicking
several protestors. 17 were reportedly arrested and later
released. Pictures of the demonstration reveal the
demand for a referendum and the closure of the
Freeport mine.50
pOn 26 April, hundreds of students took part in a
peaceful demonstration in the city of Jayapura, Papua
Province, rejecting the resumption of the Indonesian
transmigration programme for Papua. The
transmigration programme was an official state policy
that relocated thousands of Indonesian settlers to
Papua, and othe provinces, and severely contributed to
the marginalization of indigenous Papuans in their own
land. The Governor of Papua reportedly signed a
Memorandum of Understanding about transmigration
to the Central Highlands of Papua in 2010. The students
oppose these plans.51
pOn 3 August, hundreds of members of the Moni tribe
demonstrated in front of the Mimika District People’s
Representative Council DPRD (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat
Daerah) demanding guarantees that they will not be
evicted from their traditional land located in a
protected forest area managed by PT Freeport
Indonesia. The protestors called for the return of their
traditional land by the Freeport mine.52
pOn 14 December, a group of approximately 50
activists including students participated in a peaceful
march in the city of Manokwari, West Papua Province,
protesting against injustice and human rights violations
by the Indonesian security forces against Papuans. The
march also commemorated the 22nd anniversary of the
Proclamation of the Independence of West Melanesia.
The police arrested five students who were involved in
the peaceful protest. These were Alex Duwiri, Yance
Sekeyab, John Raweyai, Penehas Serongon and Jhon
Wilson Wader. In 2011, they were put on trial for
treason.53
pOn 14 December, the two political activists Melki
Bleskadit and Daniel Yenu took part in a peaceful event
in the city of Manokwari, West Papua Province, to mark
the 22nd anniversary of the Proclamation of the
Republic of Melanesia. When Bleskadit gave a speech
while holding the Morning Star Flag he was
immediately arrested by the Manokwari police. The
police also arrested Danile Yenu who had been asked to
say a prayer at the end of the ceremony. In 2011, the two
men were put on trial for treason.54
a. The Return of the Special Autonomy
The Special Autonomy Law came into force on 1 January
2002 with the purpose of protecting, guaranteeing, and
strengthening the rights of the indigenous Papuans
within the Republic of Indonesia. However, ten years after
the Special Autonomy Law came into force, the Indonesian
Government has still failed to take all necessary steps to
implement the law. Despite this legislation, the rights of
the indigenous Papuans remain unprotected. In actual
fact, the Indonesian Government has issued policies
violating the Special Autonomy Law, such as the
Presidential Instruction No. 1/2003 on the establishment
of the provinces of West Papua and Papua without
approval of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP), and Law
No. 35/2008 which revised several articles of Law No.
21/2001.
In addition to this, Special Autonomy funds have been
distributed indiscriminately in Papua. This has contributed
to the increase of corruption and has attracted business
people from other parts of Indonesia. Clearly, the Special
Autonomy Law did not succeed in protecting indigenous
rights and in empowering indigenous communities;
rather, it has benefited other people and different
interests.55
In June 2010, the MRP together with representatives of
indigenous institutions, groups, and tribes held a General
Assembly to discuss and evaluate the Special Autonomy
Law in Jayapura. The two-day forum concluded that the
50 WPAT: West Papua Report, May 2010.
51 Bintang Papua, 26 April 2010: Stop transmigration to Papua (abridged in translation from Tapol); Meili, Reto: Demonstration in Jayapura
gegen Transmigration und Kolonialismus in West Papua (informal report from 6 May 2010).
52 BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, 4 August 2010: Hundreds of locals in Indonesia’s Papua protest over Freeport land use; The Jakarta Post, 4
August 2010: ICG: Government must recognize Papua beyond money terms.
53 Amnesty Intermnational: Indonesia must end criminalization of peaceful political protests in Papua; LP3BH (Institute of Research,
Analysis and Development for Legal Aid) report on the trial of five students in Manokwari.
54 See above.
55 See also: Tebay, Neles: “Papuans want a negotiated solution” (unpublished article).

21
Special Autonomy Law failed to answer the needs and
fulfil the basic rights of the Papuan peoples. In its
recommendations, the Papuan People’s Assembly and the
Indigenous People of Papua decided to return the Special
Autonomy Law to the Government of Indonesia and to
demand a dialogue between the Indonesian Government
and the People of Papua under international mediation.
56
In accordance with this decision, the Special Autonomy
Law was thereafter returned and approximately 2000
indigenous Papuans joined a peaceful march toward the
Papua legislative assembly (DPRP) in Jayapura to
demonstrate their support for the MRP’s decision. In front
of the DPRP, the Papuan leaders delivered the official
decision and recommendations from the MRP to
representatives of the DPRP. The provincial
parliamentarians promised to forward the decision and
the demands to the central government in Jakarta.
On 8 July 2010, due to the silence of the Indonesian
Government, several thousand indigenous Papuans joined
another march to the DPRP in Jayapura. They were
dressed in traditional clothing and they sang and danced
Papuan songs. The protestors occupied the DPRP building
until the day after, making of it the most effective
demonstration Papua has seen in the last decade.
The return of the Special Autonomy Law was an historic
moment within the Papuan struggle for justice, peace,
and for the acknowledgement of the indigenous rights.
The mass demonstrations carried out under the strict
surveillance of the Indonesian security forces have always
remained peaceful, partly because of the well-led
negotiations between them and Papuan leaders.57
2. 1. 4 Makar Charges Put Dozens of
Papuans Behind Bars
Thirteen years after Indonesia entered a new political era
with the downfall of Suharto, there have been significant
improvements in the political and democratic rights of
its citizens. However, in Papua, basic human rights are
violated almost daily. Papuans know that simply by
participating in a peaceful demonstration and holding
aloft a flag of their own choosing they can land in jail on
the charge of makar (treason or rebellion).
Article 106 of the Indonesian Criminal Code defines the
crime of Makar as:
“The attempt, undertaken with intent, to bring the
territory of the state wholly or partially under
foreign domination or to separate part thereof (…) ”
In Manokwari, seven people (including five students) are
currently being tried for makar after having been arrested
on 14 December 2010 for attending a peaceful rally to
protest against human rights violations and celebrate the
anniversary of the independence of ‘West Melanesia’.
58
Others have been incarcerated for taking part in events
celebrating West Papua’s national day on 1 December
2010. The Papuan currently serving the longest sentence
(15 years) for makar is Filep Karma who was arrested in
56 Keputusan MRP Nomor 02/MRP/2010, 16 June 2010.
57 WPN: Informationsbrief 22. Juni 2010: Papua Volksrat gibt Sonderautonomiegesetz an Regierung zurück – Forderung nach Referendum;
Informationsbrief 23. Juni 2010: Warum die Sonderautonomie gescheitert ist – Der Vorsitzende des Papua Volksrates A. Alua zieht Bilanz;
Informationsbrief 15. Juli 2010: Tausende Papua demonstrieren für die Rückgabe der Sonderautonomie – Provinzparlament schweigt.
58 A group known as Bintang 14 (14 Stars) advocates the independence of West Papua as West Melanesia. Its anniversary is celebrated on 14
December, the day in 1988 when its founder, Thomas Wanggai, was arrested after leading an independence rally.
The occupation of the Papuan Legislative Assembly in 2010, demanding a referendum to resolve political uncertainty in Papua.

22
December 2004 because he was waving the Morning Star
flag. In early 2011, the leading human rights organizations,
KontraS Papua and the Commission for the Disappeared
and the Victims of Violence, published a report on makar
cases in 2010. It highlighted how often the offence is used
to criminalize peaceful political activity:
‘In 2010, cases with a political dimension have
characteristically become ensnared by the charge of
makar, the Indonesian word for treason or rebellion…
altogether in 2010, 32 people were charged or
investigated in connection with Article 106 on makar.’
a. Summary of Cases
Kasepo Airstrip: Peaceful Raising of the Morning Star Flag.
On 1 April, Nataniel Runggamusi (27) and Yance Mambuai
(34) were charged with makar and then sentenced by the
Jayapura Court District to two and a half years’
imprisonment. On 14 June, Yusuf Aninan (27) was also
sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment and
Ye re t R u na we re ( 59 ) to two years and three months
imprisonment under the same article. The four men were
charged for makar because of their alleged involvement
in the raising of the Morning Star Flag at Kasepo Airstrip,
Mamberamo Raya Regency, Papua Province, in May 2009.
Biak: Peaceful Raising of the Morning Star Flag.
On 23 April, Septimus Rumere (62) was charged with
makar in relation to the raising of the Morning Star flag
in front of his house in Biak Timor district on 1 December
2009. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
Jayapura: Peaceful Demonstration
On 11 August, Semuel Yaru and Luther Wrait were
sentenced to one year of imprisonment for incitement,
under article 110 of the Indonesian Penal Code. Yaru and
Wrait had been among the leaders of a peaceful
demonstration organized in front of the Papua People’s
Council MRP (Majelis Rakyat Papua), in November 2009
to criticize the failure of the Special Autonomy Law.
Demta: Peaceful Raising of the Morning Star Flag
Seven men between 27 and 53 years old were arrested
and charged with makar for waving the Morning Star flag
outside the house of a community leader and the office
of the Dewan Adat Papua (Papua Customary Council), in
October 2010. Following a period of time in detention,
they have been released by the police and it appears no
further action has been taken.
Wamena: Nine Persons at Trial
The security forces arrested nine people from Wananuk
(Yalengga sub-district, Jayawijaya Regency, Papua
Province), in November 2010 and seized two Morning Star
flags, a machete, and a knife as evidence. All nine persons
have been interrogated by the police in Jayawijaya and,
at the time of writing, have been tried by the Wamena
District Court.
Arrested: Human Rights Activist Sebby Sambon
On 4 December, the indigenous human rights activist
Sebby Sambom was arrested when he was about to fly
to Hong Kong via Jakarta to attend a human rights
advocacy training organised by the Asian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC). Neither the arrest warrant nor a
record of his belongings which were confiscated have
been given to Mr Sambom. Mr Sambon was taken to the
prosecutor’s office where he was interrogated without
the presence of a lawyer. He was told that he had been
arrested following an order of the Indonesian Supreme
Court, which authorised the Jayapura District Court to
sentence him to a two year imprisonment in Doyo
Narcotics Prison, Sentani. The basis for the Supreme Court
order is not clear. After the interrogation, the police
produced a Morning Star flag wrapped in a plastic bag
which they said they had found in Mr Sambon’s laptop
case, but he denied that it belonged to him. On 30
December 2010, Mr Sambon was questioned by the police
on suspicion of makar and kept in jail until the end of
July 2011.
Manokwari: Peaceful rising of the Morning Star Flag
On 14 December 2010, to welcome the 22nd anniversary
of the Independence of the West Melanesian Republic
held in Sanggeng, West Manokwari district, several people
were arrested by the Manokwari police on suspicion of
raising the Morning Star flag and for making political
speeches. Seven people were arrested and taken to
Manokwari police headquarters: Melkianus Bleskadit,
Secretary-General of the National Council to Prepare for
the Independence and Sovereignty of West Melanesia;
Daniel Yenu, a priest; and five students from the State
University of Papua (Universitas Negeri Papua, UNIPA)
Alex Duwira, Jhon Rawiyai, Peneas Serongan, Yance
Sekenyap and Jhon Wilson Wader.
They were questioned by the police and charged under
Articles 106, 107 and/or 160 of the criminal code. The
accused were assisted by a legal team from Manokwari
LP3BH which drew attention to the unsatisfactory
conditions in which they were being held. In cells with
leaking roofs, they had to sleep on thin mattresses on the
wet floor. The ventilation was poor and they fell ill with
malaria and gastric disorders because bags of trash had
been left in the cells.
The complaints made by the lawyer have been ignored
and the trial began in June 2011.

23
b. Judicial Review of Makar Articles
In April 2011, a group of Papuan lawyers and human
rights NGOs announced their intention to call for a
Judicial Review of the makar articles59 in the Criminal
Code. They described these norms as inappropriate for a
country whose Constitution guarantees the right to
freedom of expression. “The makar articles”, they said,
“have been used to prevent Papuan people from freely
expressing their views and aspirations, particularly
criticisms of the injustices and discrimination experienced
by Papuan people for several decades.”
The amendment or repeal of all articles in the Indonesian
Criminal Code that have been used to imprison individuals
for their legitimate peaceful activities, including articles
106 and 110 of the Criminal Code on ‘rebellion’ was also
recommended in a June 2011 report on Conflict
Management in Indonesia drafted by the Geneva
Indonesian Institute of Sciences.60
2. 2 Human Rights Defenders’ Situation in
Papua
In I998, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Resolution 53/144 now widely known as the
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders which
acknowledges the “(…)Right and Responsibility of
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and
Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms.“ Furthermore, it stipulates the
need and the means to protect human rights defenders
(HRDs), their work, and the legitimacy of their activities.
The necessity of protection measures becomes clear when
we look at the situation of Papuan HRDs. Searches at
home and at the office conducted by security forces and
unidentified persons, intimidating phone calls and text
messages, dissemination of wrong or discrediting
information, permanent surveillance at home and at work,
criminalization through defamation, death threats, and a
lack of regular income are only some examples of the
conditions HRDs had to face in Papua in 2010. These
conditions apply to HRDs working on both Civil and
Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Also, journalists who express their criticism are
the target of threats, intimidation, harassment, and
killings.
Restrictive and Discriminative legislation, such as the
makar – or the subversion article contained in Article 106
of the Indonesian Penal Code, and the presidential decree
77/2007 – banning local cultural symbols like the morning
star flag as “separatist symbols” – are detrimental to the
work and safety of HRDs in Papua.
In Papua, most activists have to face allegations of working
for a hidden secessionist agenda when exercising their
right to investigate and demand justice for past human
rights abuses or when they criticize the mismanagement
of their government. Their work and efforts for social,
economic and political change are constantly stigmatized,
criminalized and illegitimated. The national security
approach used by the central government towards
Papuans, the absence of measures and policies to ensure
the protection of HRDs and the ongoing impunity –
especially of security forces personnel– are exacerbating
the difficulties for HRDs in Papua.
a. The year 2010 – Signs of Hope …and Discouragement
In 2010, the human rights movement saw positive
developments. For instance, the massive peaceful Papuan
protests against the Special Autonomy Law – held in June
and July 2010 and organized by well known HRDs and
members of civil society – represented a positive step
toward the freedom of expression and assembly.
The granting of necessary medical treatment for some
political prisoners after persistent efforts and campaigning
by international and local Human Rights organizations
can also be considered as a success in the struggle for the
respect of human rights, although some of the prisoners
are still unable to access adequate medical care.
National and international NGOs continue to support the
work and security of Papuan HRDs through security
workshops, capacity building, advocacy, roundtable events,
visits, funding and many more activities. The Jakarta-
based NGO Imparsial continues to lobby for a special law
granting the protection of HRDs.
b. 2010 Tragic Losses, Intimidations, Arrests and
Structural Weaknesses
pArdiansyah Matra’is, Merauke: On 30 July, 07:00am,
the corpse of the critical journalist Ardiansyah Matra’is
was found in the Maro River, Merauke Regency. Matra’is
had reported on illegal resource extraction, unresolved
cases of past human rights violations and corruption.
Matra’is claimed to have been intimidated as a
consequence of his work. Police investigations
concluded that he had committed suicide even though
59 Articles 106 and 107 of the criminal code on subversion and incitement (the ‘makar’ or subversion articles) of the Indonesian Criminal
Code (KUHP).
60 ‘Conflict Management in Indonesia: An Analysis of the Conflicts in Maluku, Papua and Poso.’

24
the autopsy revealed signs of physical abuse. Before and
after Matra’is’ death other journalists also reported
threats and intimidation to the police.61
pLP3BH (Lembaga Yayasan Lembaga Penelitian,
Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Bantuan Hukum),
Manokwari: In September, members of the legal aid
and human rights organization LP3BH in Manokwari
were threatened by unknown persons while
investigating the killing of civilians by Brimob suspects.
On 17 September, LP3BH reported receiving threatening
text messages from unknown numbers demanding
LP3BH to stop its investigation of the incident.62 On 14
December, the lawyer Simon Banundi from LP3BH was
arrested while monitoring a peaceful march for the
22nd anniversary of the Proclamation of the
Independence of West Melanesia where the 14 star flag
had been waved. While Simon was released without
charge, 5 other students associated with the march
were charged with Makar (subversion) and incitement
under articles 106 and 160 of the Penal Code.
pHumi Inane, Wamena: Members of the women and
children’s rights NGO Humi Inane (Women voice), in
Wamena, had to undergo home visits carried out by
members of Indonesia’s special military forces known as
Kopassus (Komando Pasukan Khusus). They still
continue to face intimidation when assisting victims of
domestic violence. When the perpetrators are police or
high government officials, the chances of a proper
investigation and legal proceeding against the
perpetrator are reduced, while the risk of retaliation
against the HRD who is supporting the victim increases.
pUnited For Truth BUK (Bersatu untuk Kebenaran),
Jayapura: Members of the victims’ organization BUK
have been continually harassed, intimidated, and even
forced to move house. This is thought to be the result
of their campaign to demand access to proper
healthcare for two political prisoners, Filep Karma and
Ferdinand Pakage.
pProminent Papuan leaders: On 8 September, two
documents of the Military’s Special Forces Kopassus
were published. They revealed that Papuan leaders have
been constantly monitored by Kopassus. In these
documents, the leaders were mentioned as political
separatists and associated with the Free Papua
Movement OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka). Among
the 14 leaders listed, Sokratez Sofyan Yoman (President
of the Baptist Church in Papua), Dr. Benny Giay
(President of the Kemah Injil Church in Papua), Markus
Haluk (Traditional Council of Papua DAP) and Agustinus
Alue Alua (Chairman of the Papuan People’s Council
MRP) were mentioned.
pEmanuel Goo, Nabire. In May 2010, Nabire Emanuel
Goo, a 34 year old journalist and human rights activist,
died of a malaria infection because he could not access
adequate care in the disastrous health system in Papua.
Deficiencies in the education system and in the health
services might be indeed considered indirect obstacles
to the work of HRDs.
pThe circulation of text messages from an unknown
source denouncing Papuan activists as secretly working
for the state intelligence agency continued in 2010. This
can be seen as an attempt to spread mistrust among
civil society.
pKomnas HAM Papua: According to one member of
the local branch of the National Human Rights
Commission (Komnas HAM), this institution continues
to have a weak mandate and lacks legal and financial
support. This is hampering the Commission’s ability to
contribute to the work of the HRDs.
c. Geographic Aspects-Still Important in 2010
Individuals or small NGOs based in the more remote areas
of Papua have to face additional obstacles compared to
organizations based in the cities. They often suffer from
the lack of support networks, infrastructure, and limited
access to funding and information. This issue is not given
enough emphasis as human rights violations occur more
often in remote areas such as Puncak Jaya, Merauke, and
Timika63. In these areas, monitoring and reporting is
particularly dangerous because of the militarization of
the areas and the absence of the rule of law. All these
factors result in a low number of civil society organizations
working in those remote regions where there is a strong
need for them.
61 Joint press statement on the Murder of Two Indonesian Journalists, 26th August, Forum Asia, AJI, Imparsial.
62 The content of the text messages was as follows: “You think you are brave? You think you are cool and you want to play with us?”. When
LP3BH inquired who the sender was, the sender replied “Aren’t you afraid?”
63 f. ex. Publication by Human Rights Watch „What did I do wrong“ on Abuses by Indonesian Special Forces against Papuans in Merauke.

25
d. Summary
Even though there have been some positive developments
for HRDs working in Papua in 2010, they continue to be
exposed to threats, intimidation, and criminalization for
their work. A multilayer approach is needed to improve
the situation of HRDs and civil society in order to create
a safer space where they can give voice to concerns and
strive for empowerment, development, justice, freedom,
and democracy.
A less dangerous environment for Papuan HRDs can only
be established if the state openly recognizes their work,
security forces start operating according to human rights
principles, the judiciary is free from corruption, and the
state guarantees the protection of human rights and fair
criminal proceedings and punishments.
2. 3 Torture in West Papua
In October 2010, a video depicting two incidents of
torture of indigenous Papuans committed by the
Indonesian armed forces (TNI) was leaked and published
by the Asian Human Rights Commission.
The first video,64 taken with a cell phone in the
Tingginambut area, in West Papua, recorded the
maltreatment inflicted on indigenous Papuans in the
custody of the TNI. In the second case, the video showed
two Papuan men, Tunaliwor Kiwo and Telangga Gire,
being interrogated and brutally tortured by Indonesian
soldiers.
Due to the increasing international criticism and pressure,
a case against the military personnel was filed before a
military tribunal in Jayapura, Papua. The tribunal convicted
three members of the Army’s Strategic and Reserve
Command (Kostrad) 753rd battalion – Second Sgt. Irwan
Rizkiyanto, First Pvt. Jackson Agu, and First Pvt. Thamrin
Mahamiri – for disobedience to their commander’s orders
to release the two Papuan men. The three soldiers were
sentenced to eight to ten months of imprisonment on 24
January 2011.
Severe miscarriages of justice took place in the military
trial. Firstly, the case was held in a military tribunal run
by the armed forces without the presence of witnesses
and of the victim, rather than being tried by civilian
judges. Secondly, only three out of the six soldiers
depicted in the videos were prosecuted. Thirdly, the three
were only charged with the minor offence of violating
military discipline and disobedience, instead of the actual
crime of torture. Lastly, sentences ranged from ten
months, through nine months, to eight months, and were
unjustifiably minimal, given that the maximum penalty
under the military criminal code is thirty months’
imprisonment. The continued reliance on the military
court system and arbitrary punishment demonstrates that
the Indonesian government has not shown any credible
commitments to improve the military torture practices
in Papua.
Mr. Tuanliwor Kiwo, the victim, has still not received any
compensation or proper medical and psychological
treatment and continues to remain hidden for fear of
retaliation by the local military forces.
Indonesian soldiers have been committing criminal acts,
torture, and serious human rights violations for decades
in Papua. The Army regularly perpetrates abuses against
Papuans while conducting anti-separatist sweeping
operations, which often include the burning of villages,
killing of livestock, arbitrary arrests, and other forms of
intimidation. The people who suffer the most from the
military action are innocent civilians and villagers. This
practice of intimidation against alleged OPM supporters
and entire communities aggravates tensions and social
conflict.
a. The Indonesian Military Justice System
Despite the grave human rights abuses committed, the
Indonesian military personnel are granted immunity from
being held accountable by civilian courts. According to
the Indonesian military Law no. 31 of 1997, soldiers who
have committed crimes against civilians can only be tried
in a military court. With its own prosecution division
military prosecutor (oditur militer), the military court has
jurisdiction over all crimes committed by members of the
Army. The courts generally consist of poorly trained
military judges whose decisions cannot be further
challenged before the Supreme Court.
Military court proceedings do not respect due process
principles. Very lenient punishments have been imposed
on some of the most serious human rights abuses and
the Military Penal Code, modeled on the colonial civilian
Penal Code, has not been reformed in accordance to the
international human rights instruments ratified by
Indonesia.
For instance, although Indonesia ratified the UN
Convention against Torture in 1998 and it is therefore
legally bound to prohibit torture and other forms of ill-
treatment, both the military and the civil criminal codes
64 INDONESIA: Indonesian military tortures indigenous Papuans, available at: http://bit.ly/iDOmsx.

26
have yet to criminalize torture. Military tribunals are
largely free from public scrutiny making it considerably
difficult for the public to obtain information. The lack of
proper investigations and adequate judgments feeds a
culture of impunity which indirectly encourages the
commission of human rights abuses and prompts
arbitrary arrests and torture.
The official response given by a military spokesperson
deploring the leaking of the two torture videos rather
than denouncing the crimes committed shows the lack
of a commitment to justice within the TNI. According to
the daily newspaper Merdeka Rakyat, the Indonesian
army’s Inspector General, Lt. Gen. M. Noer Muis, has
openly admitted that the Army is far more interested in
“looking for people who distributed it [the footage],
because it is very detrimental to us [the armed forces].”,
President Yudhoyono reinforced this sense of impunity
dismissing the torture as a “minor incident”.65
The websites that published the videos were sabotaged.
These disruptions to their Internet service were most
likely intended to make the videos unavailable. The
perpetrators cannot be conclusively identified for
technical reasons.66
b. Cases of Torture in Papua
The following list gives an overview of cases of torture
and ill-treatment in the Indonesian Provinces of Papua
and West Papua in 2010. It does not claim to be
exhaustive and it must be assumed that many cases of
torture, ill-treatment and violence by the Indonesian
security forces in Papua remain unreported.
pOn 17 March, Rev. Kindeman Gire and the indigenous
church worker Pitinus Kogoya (36) from the Evangelical
Church in Indonesia GIDI (Gereja Injili di Indonesia)
were severely tortured by members of Infantry Battalion
Yonif 756 of the Indonesian Military. Rev. Kindeman was
reportedly shot dead afterwards. The incident occurred
in Kalome Village, Tingginambut District, Puncak Jaya
Regency, Papua Province.
At 3:30pm, Rev. Gire arrived by car in Kalome delivering
some petrol. Members of the Indonesian Army
interrogated Rev. Gire about the intended use of the
petrol. Rev. Gire explained that it was for the church.
Members of the Indonesian Army then started beating
Rev. Gire.
At 5.30pm, Pitinus Kogoya was stopped on the street by
members of the Indonesian Army. The military
personnel asked Kogoya what he was doing. He
explained he wanted to buy cooking oil. The soldiers
asked Kogoya if he knew Rev. Gire. Kogoya confirmed
that they were both working for the church. The
soldiers then interrogated Kogoya about the OPM
(Organisation for a Free Papua) and asked if he worked
for the OPM. Kogoya said that he was not working for
the OPM. Kogoya was then beaten with a rifle by
members of the Indonesian Army.
At 6:00pm, Rev. Gire and Pitinus Kogoya were brought
to the same location where they were further tortured
by members of the Army. While one soldier was kicking
Kogoya’s left neck, another one kicked his shoulders and
back. Kogoya eventually managed to escape.
At 7:30pm, Kogoya heard two gunshots from the
direction where he had left Rev. Gire with the soldiers.
A moment later, he saw a car leaving the scene.
On 22 March, the corpse of Rev. Gire was found by local
people in a rice bag in the Yamo River which is close to
Yambuni village.67
pOn March 18, the indigenous Papuans Tives Tabuni
and Wotoran Wenda were tortured by Indonesian
soldiers of Infantry Battalion (Yonif) 753/ Nabire in
Tingginambut District, Puncak Jaya Regency, Papua
Province.
The perpetrators were brought to the Military Court
(Kodam XVII Cenderawasih) in Jayapura and on 11
November sentenced under article 103 of the Military
Panel Code KUHPM (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum
Pidana Militer) for disobeying orders. The soldiers
Syahmin Lubis, Joko Sulistyono and Dwi Purwanto were
sentenced to five months of imprisonment and Second
Lieutenant Cosmos to seven months of imprisonment.
The soldiers confessed that they tortured the victims
through beatings.68
65 The Jakarta Post, 22. 01. 2011: SBY describes Papua torture as “minor”.
66 Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), 02. 11. 2010.
67 Testimony Pitinius Kogoya, Jayapura 13. 01. 11; The Jakarta Post, 21. 10. 10; Report by Piron Moribnak, 24. 03. 2010, Mulia, Puncak Jaya.
68 Jubi, 05. 11. 10: Empat TNI Akui Lakukan Penganiyaan dan Kekerasan di Tingginambut.

27
Similar to the torture case of Tunaliwor Kiwo and
Telangga Gire the case was tried at a military court and
failed to meet international standards. The perpetrators
were charged for disobedience instead of the actual
crime of torture.
pOn 18 March, at 5am, members of the Indonesian
army reportedly attacked a traditional hut (honai) on
the way from Kalome village, Tingginambut District, to
Mulia, the capital city of Puncak Jaya Regency. The 13
inhabitants of the hut were reportedly ill-treated by the
soldiers.69
pOn 25 March, the indigenous civilian Ikimo Kosay (26)
was ill-treated while in police custody at the police
station at PasarJibama, Wamena city, Jayawijaya
Regency, Papua Province. The Police officer Daniel
Tapilatu poured hot water over Ikimo Kosay in a cell.
The victim experienced serious burns at his left cheek,
right ear, and backside.70
pOn 4 October, the three indigenous civilians Amos
Wetipo, Franz Lokobal and Alex Wetapo were beaten by
members of the Indonesian Police in the city of
Wamena, Jayawijaya Regency, Papua Province. Amos
Wetipo experienced injuries at the back of his head,
Franz Lokobal was injured at his left thigh and Alex
Wetapo experienced head injuries due to beatings with
a rifle. The case was linked to a conflict between the
police and members of Petapa (Penjaga Tanah Papua/
Guards of Papua) at the Wamena airport in which
Ismael Lokobal was shot dead.71
pOn 14 November, at 7:30am, the indigenous civilian
Adam Marandof was tortured by members of the
Indonesian Air Force in Sisingamangaraja Street, Biak
City, Papua Province. On his way to church, Marandof
passed a person dancing to loud music on the street in
front of a pick-up van with opened doors. Marandof
asked one of the watching members of the Military
69 Report by Piron Moribnak, 24. 03. 2010, Mulia, Puncak Jaya.
70 Letter (Nr. 065/SRT-LKP/JAPH-HAM/Kab.Jayawijaya/2010) of the Human Rights Organisation “Jaringan Advokasi Penegakan Hukum dan
HAM Pengunungan Tengah Papua” to the chief of police in Jayawijaya Regency.
71 West Papua Netzwerk (WPN): Rundbrief Nr. 51. Wuppertal, December 2010, pg. 5.
72 Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) Desk, Evangelical Christian Church in the Land of Papua GKI-TP (Gereja Kristen Injili di Tanah
Papua): Routine Report about the situation in Papua between October 2010 and January 2011Papua Pos, 16. 11. 10.
73 Informasi Awal Kondisi Keamanan di tapal batas RI-PNG per September–November 2010. Teror dan Pembunuhan Terjadi lagi di daerah
Perbatasan RI-PNG.
74 Perwakilan Komis Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia Provinsi Papua: Laporan Peristiwa Penyerangan Aparat TNI-Polri di Yugum, Bolakme,
Kabupaten Jayawijaya, Papua pada hari Rabu, tanggal O1 Desember 2010.
Infantry Unit to reduce the volume as it was nearly the
time for prayer. One Air Force Unit member insulted
Marandof and together with six other soldiers started
beating Marandof in the ribs, stomach and legs and
forced him to the ground until he lost consciousness.
The soldiers locked Marandof in the nearby restaurant
“Harto Moro”, where one Air Force member, Bripka
Basuki reportedly started to torture him until
Commander Joko Ariwibowo came. The victim begged
forgiveness, but Joko Ariwibowo strangled Marandof, hit
him repeatedly in the face and ordered the continuation
of the torture. The soldiers reportedly threatened to kill
Marandof who eventually was able to escape and
helped by members of a police patrol on the street. 72
pOn 17 November, at 8:00pm, Rifky Tuti (28) was
reportedly shot with three bullets by two Indonesian
policemen in plain clothes. The incident occurred in the
transmigration settlement Arso 2, Keerom Regency,
Papua province. It is reported that the police brought
Rifky Tuti to the Police Hospital in Jayapura the same
evening. Since then Tuti has been missing.73
pOn 1 December, at 11:00am, the indigenous civilians
Atil Wenda (35) and Melius Tabuni (46) were shot by
members of Infantry Batallion (Yonif) 355 in Yugum
Village, Bolakme District, Jayawijaya Regency, Papua
province. Members of Yonif 355 were near Yugum village
and when a group of indigenous civilians appeared the
soldiers immediately opened fire and shot at Atili
Wenda and Melius Tabuni. Atili Wenda was shot in the
left arm and Melius Tabuni in the left elbow. A
delegation of the National Human Rights Commission
(Komnas HAM) visited the site and confirmed the case.
According to Komnas HAM, this particular region is
highly militarized and the local population is
traumatized.74
None of the perpetrators of the abovementioned cases
have been brought to justice and sentenced for torture.

28
2. 4 Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
executions
The Indonesian Provinces of Papua and West Papua have
a long history of extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary
killings, since Indonesian troops entered the former
Western New Guinea in 1962. Numerous indigenous
Papuans have been reportedly killed during military
operations since then.75 When the military regime under
President Soeharto came to an end in 1998, the indigenous
Papuans hoped that after decades of military oppression,
justice, peace, and democracy would also be installed in
Indonesia’s easternmost provinces. Today, indigenous
Papuans certainly enjoy more freedom and safety than
they did under the Soeharto Regime, but despite Indonesia’s
institutional improvements in human rights and democracy,
extrajudicial and arbitrary killings by members of the
Indonesian security forces still occur in praxis and remain
unpunished.
Under the Special Autonomy Law, the National Human
Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) documented gross
human rights violations in Papua, such as the Abepura
Case (2000), the Wasior Case (2001) and the Wamena case
(2003) which all included extrajudicial and arbitrary
killings of indigenous Papuans by Indonesian security
forces. To date, despite the Human Rights Law No.
26/2000, none of these cases have been tried before the
National Human Rights Court.76 Throughout 2010,
indigenous NGOs from Papua continued to push to obtain
judicial accountability for these cases.77
In particular, in isolated regions such as the central
highlands of Papua, indigenous peoples remain
unprotected and subject to extrajudicial and arbitrary
killings committed by the Indonesian security forces. As
in previous years, the Faith Based Network (FBN) notes
an increase of killings perpetrated by Indonesian security
forces in the Puncak Jaya Regency. This is a militarized
region in the central Highlands and it has been the target
of repeated sweeping operations conducted by the
Indonesian Army in search of alleged OPM members.
The following is an overview of extrajudicial and arbitrary
executions perpetrated by the Indonesian security forces
in the Provinces of Papua and West Papua, in 2010. The
list does not claim to be complete as many cases of
human rights violations in Papua remain unreported.
pOn 17 March 2010, at 05:00pm, the indigenous
Papua n Rev. Kindeman Gire from the Evangelical Church
in Indonesia GIDI (Gereja Injili di Indonesia) was killed by
members of the Infantry Battalion Yonif 756 of the
Indonesian Military in Kalome, Tingginambut District,
Puncak Jaya Regency, Papua Province. Reportedly soldiers
tortured Rev. Gire for 1 1
/2 hours and then killed him with
two gun-shots. A video about the torture of Rev. Gire
appeared on the Internet in October and received
international attention.78
pOn 19 March 2010, the indigenous Evangelist
Perianus Tabuni was reportedly killed by members of
the Indonesian Military in Kalome, Tingginambut
District, Puncak Jaya Regency, Papua Province. The victim
was put into a bag and thrown into a river. The corpse
was found at the estuary of Garugi Bar River.79
pIn March 2010, a video about the torture of the
indigenous Papuan Yawan Wayeni (39) was published
on the internet. This torture resulted in the death of
Wayeni on 3 August 2009. That day members of the
Mobile Brigade of the Indonesian Police (Brimob) raided
the house of Yawan Wayeni in Matembu village, Serui
City, Papua Province and shot him in his left calf.
Outside the house Brimob officers tied Wayeni’s arms
and legs to a log, then an officer plunged a bayonet
into his stomach, spilling out his bowels. Wayeni was
then forced to walk around the village. In the evening,
Wayeni’s family was informed that his body was at
Serui hospital.80
pOn 17 May 2010, security forces shot and killed the
indigenous Papuans Werius Telenggen and Yarton
Enumbi in Yambi village, Puncak Jaya, Papua Province.
The victims were alleged members of the Free Papua
Movement OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka).81
75 For example the 1970 massacre of more than 85 indigenous Papuans in Biak, the bombardment and killing of several thousand villagers
in Jayawijaya in 1977, the use of napalm and chemical weapons against villagers during Operation Clean Sweep in 1981 (see Allard K.
Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School: Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law
of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control).
76 Indonesia has four permanent National Human Rights Courts.
77 Solidaritas Korban Pelanggaran HAM Papua (SKHP): Press Release 4 April 2010: Mengenang tragedi Wamena berdarah, 4 April 2003.
Negara bertanggung jawab atas kasus Wasior 2001 dan Wamena berdarah, 4. April 2003.
78 The Jakarta Post, 21. 10. 10; Report by Piron Moribnak, 24. 03. 2010, Mulia, Puncak Jaya.
79 US Department of State: 2010 Human Rights Report: Indonesia, pg 2; Markus Haluk: Laporan kekerasan Negara terhadap rakyat bangsa
Papua September 2009 – September 2010, pg 6.
80 West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT): West Papua Report, September 2010; The Jakarta Post 20./21. 10. 10.
81 Markus Haluk, pg 9.

29
pOn 30 July 2010, the corpse of the journalist
Ardiansyah Matra’is (25) was found in Maro River,
Merauke Regency, Papua Province. Before his death,
Matra’is had reported on illegal logging by military
officers and the upcoming controversial local elections
in Merauke Regency. According to family and colleagues,
Matra’is received threatening SMS and was followed by
unidentified persons the weeks before his death.
Indonesian and international Human Rights
organisations suspect that Matra’is was killed by state
actors due to the critical nature of his work.
p On 15 September 2010, 8 p. m., the indigenous
Papuan Naftalia Kwan, a pastor of the Christian
Fellowship Bible Church of Indonesia (GPKAI), was shot
dead by members of the Mobile Brigade of the
Indonesian Police (Brimob). A conflict between civilians
and members of Brimob had occurred due to a traffic
jam allegedly caused by a Brimob member. Brimob
members opened fire and killed Naftalia Kwan. The
incident took place in Esau Sesa Street, South
Manokwari, West Papua Province. The next morning, at
9.30am, the corpse of the indigenous Papuan Septinus
Kwan was found on the edge of a ravine.82
pOn 4 October, 9 a. m., Ismail Lokobal (36) was shot
dead by the Indonesian Police in the city of Wamena,
Jayawijaya Regency, Papua Province. Approximately an
hour before, members of the Indonesian Police (Polsek)
searched the luggage of Petapa (Penjaga Tanah Papua,
Guards of Papua) members at Wamena airport,
confiscated some of the luggage and attempted to
arrest one man. This caused a conflict between
members of Petapa and the police in which Ismael
Lokobal was shot dead and three civilians were injured
by members of the Indonesian Police.83
pOn 15 October 2010, 8.30 p. m., the indigenous
Papuan Riky Abraham Zonggenau (22) was allegedly
killed by members of a Special Team of the Indonesian
Military (Timsus 753) in Aikai Village, Enarotali District,
Paniai Regency, Papua Province. According to witnesses,
Zonggenau was walking towards the house of a friend
when two motorbikes stopped behind him and four
people got off and attacked Zonggenau, beating and
kicking him. Witnesses report that the motorbikes were
made by Tiger and belonged to the military unit Timsus
753. The corpse of Zonggenau was seen 15 minutes later
in a gutter and guarded by an armed person. When
witnesses and family members returned to the location
30 minutes later, the corpse was missing. Witnesses and
local human rights defenders suspect members of
Timsus 753 of killing Riky Zonggenau. The Indonesian
Army denies this allegation.84
pOn 3 December 2010, 12.30 p. m., the indigenous
Papuan Hiron Weitipo was shot dead during a joint
operation conducted by Jayapura municipality police
officers and local military. Hiron Weitipo had escaped
from Abepura Prison. The killing occurred in Tanah
Hitam Village, Abepura District, Jayapura Regency, Papua
Province.85
To date, the perpetrators of all these killings enjoy
impunity.
82 LP3BH (Institute of Research, Analysis and Development for Legal Aid): Report on Manokwari Shooting Incident; The Jakarta Globe,
17. 09. 10.
83 West Papua Netzwerk (WPN): Rundbrief Nr. 51. Wuppertal, December 2010, pg. 5.
84 Yones Douw, 27. 10. 10: Note regarding a demo which took place in Enarotoli.
85 The Jakarta Post, 05. 12. 10.
Scene of crime where Yawan Yaweni was tortured.

30
86 This article was written by Dr. Remco van de Pas, who is an international public health expert. He worked in 2007 and 2008 in Papua on
primary health care and HIV/AIDS and is as adviser still involved with health programmes in Papua.
87 The right to the highest available standard of health. 11. 8. 2000. E/C.12/2000/4. (General Comments), available at: http://www.unhchr.
ch/tbs/doc.nsf/ %28symbol %29/E.C.12.2000.4.En.
88 The 1945 Constitution of the republic of Indonesia.
89 Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik-BPS) and Macro International. 2008. Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey 2007.
Calverton, Maryland, USA: BPS and Macro International.
90 World health organization. Indonesia Country health profile. 2011.
91 Rees SJ, van de Pas R, Silove D, Kareth M. Health and human security in West Papua. Med J Aust. Dec 1-15;189(11–12):641-3. 2008. Leonie
de Haan. Gezondheidszorg in de vogelkop. Een kwantitatief onderzoek naar de sterfte onder zuigelingen enkinderen in de Kebarvallei,
West-Papua (2010).
Section 3 - Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
3. 1. The Right to Health in Papua86
For this analysis, reference will be made to General
Comment No. 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (CESCR),
87
concerning the right to the
highest attainable standard of health (article 12 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights). The General Comment delineates the component
parts of the right to the highest attainable standard of
health, namely the right to available, accessible,
acceptable and qualitative health services, prevention,
treatment and control of diseases, as well as the right to
healthy living environments.
The right to health in the Indonesian constitution is
covered in Section XA (Fundamental Human Rights) by
article 28H, stating that “each person has the right to a
life of well-being in body and mind, to a place to dwell,
to enjoy a good and healthy environment, and to receive
medical care.”88
In the specific context of Papua, attention needs to be
given to the right to maternal and reproductive health
and to the right to prevention, treatment and control of
diseases.
3. 1. 1 Overview of Health and Disease Indicators in
Papua
The lack of reliable and accessible data – together with
the fact that health conditions vary considerably within
Indonesian provinces and regions, and among socio-
cultural groups – makes it difficult to evaluate the general
health status of the Papuan population.
Nonetheless, using a demographic health survey
conducted in 2007 in the two provinces of Papua and
West Papua,89 reports from the provincial and district
health authorities, data from local and international
organisations, faith based organisations, and the United
Nations, it is finally possible to delineate some useful
indicators about the health status of the population.
a. General Life Expectancy
The general life expectancy in Indonesia is 68 years old,
however data are not disaggregated with respect to the
province of Papua and West Papua or its indigenous
population. Experience and estimates from the highlands
would roughly estimate life expectancy to be 10 years
lower for the indigenous population.
b. Under-5 Mortality Rate
The national average has decreased to 39 deaths per 1000
live births.
90
In 2006, UNICEF estimated the U-5 mortality
rate in Papua to be around 60-100 deaths per 1000 live
births. Although the estimate is conservative, they seem
to be confirmed by experiences of several organisations
working in both the highlands of Papua as well as in
West-Papua province.91
Health worker weighing children

31
92 Dinas Kesehatan Propinsi Papua. Profil Kesehatan 2009. 2010.
93 Medecins sans Frontieres – Belgium. Final project report Asmat mother and child health program 2006–2008.
94 BPS Statistics, Ministry of Health, Indonesian Government. Risk Behaviour and HIV Prevalence in Tanah Papua 2006 (Results of the IBBS
2006 in Tanah Papua). 2007.
95 Indonesia. Keementerian Kesehatan. Pusat Data dan Surveilans Epidemiologi. Indonesia Country Profile 2010 – Jakarta: Kementerian
Kesehatan, 2010.
96 SKP Jayapura. Sehat itu sa pu hak. Memoria Pasionis no. 17. Nov. 2008.
c. Maternal Mortality Rate
The national maternal mortality rate is 240 deaths per
100.000 live births. With regard to Papua, the provincial
health authority has indicated the maternal mortality to
be 362 per 100.000 live births.92 Other organisations have
indicated higher maternal mortality rates in some
districts, such as Asmat. In 2008, up to 1000 deaths per
100.000 live births have been estimated there.93 The
situation is similar in the highlands.
d. HIV/AIDS Prevalence
The official HIV prevalence rate in Papua still stands at
2.4 % of the general population, with a difference in
prevalence rate of 2.8 % between indigenous Papuans and
1.5 % for non-Papuans.
94
At the end of 2010, the provincial
AIDS commission reported 3093 registered cases of HIV
and 3210 cases that have developed into AIDS, in the
Papua province. The majority of persons who are HIV
infected have not been tested or registered by the local
authorities. HIV prevalence is expected to infect a
maximum of 5 % of the general population in the regions
of the central highlands and the districts around the cities
of Timika, Merauke and Sorong.
e. Tuberculosis and Malaria
Both diseases are still a major cause of mortality and high
morbidity for the Papuan population. In the highlands,
the number of tuberculosis cases has increased
considerably, as it is a frequent co-infection in HIV
patients. The case detection rate for Papua is reported at
40.8 %,95 so the majority of TB cases remain undetected.
An anonymous report claims that in 2009 the Mitra
Masyarakat Hospital (Rumah Sakit Mitra Masyarakat
-RSMM) in Timika treated 1500 patients with a TB
diagnosis. The same documents mention an incidence of
300 cases per 100.000 inhabitants.
Malaria is another common disease in Papua. The same
report mentions an incidence rate of 876/1000 persons
suffering from malaria at least once a year in the Mimika
district. The fatality rate is reported at 5 %. It must be
noted that malaria remains a major cause for U5 children
mortality.
f. Epidemics
Besides the chronic HIV epidemic, no major epidemics
have been confirmed by the government in 2010, both in
2006 and 2008, cholera and acute watery diarrhoea
outbreaks were seen in the districts of Jayawijaya and
Paniai. In 2010, the media reported diarrhoea outbreaks
that led to fatal cases in the districts of Mikima, Agats
and Waropen, but the exact number remains unknown.
In Paniai district, cases of measles were reported, as well
as new cases of acute watery diarrhoea, suspected to be
caused by cholera. All these outbreaks were naturally
contained, without reported intervention from the health
authorities.
g. Malnutrition
The exact rate of malnutrition in Papua is unknown. In
general, acute malnutrition (‘wastage’) is rarely seen in
the province, as energy-rich carbohydrate foods are
available (i. e. sweet potatoes in the highlands and sago
in the lowlands). However, rice has complemented or
replaced this traditional food. Increased food prices force
people to increasingly ration food. Indigenous Papuans
have less (financial) access to varied foods that include
proteins (meat/fish) and minerals (vegetables), as access
to their lands has diminished in regions with palm-oil
plantations. The problem of chronic malnutrition
(‘stunting’) is therefore frequently encountered.
The effect on young children is that their growth and
their learning and developmental abilities are hampered.
In addition, their immune system is less able to cope with
infectious diseases. In 2005, a report mentioned a
prevalence rate of 30 % malnutrition in the general
population in Jayawijaya.
96
This conservative number can
be confirmed through the experience of the population
in Puncak Jaya and Agats in 2010. The national average
malnutrition rate is 17 %. From April to August 2010 the
highlands of Papua experienced a serious drought, that
led to reduced crop outcomes, hunger and unconfirmed
numbers of fatalities in the Yahukimo regency.

32
h. Fertility Rate
The official fertility rate in Papua is 3,4 children per
woman, well above the 2.6 national average. However, a
distinction needs to be made between the Papuan
population – to which the data refer – and the fertility
rate of the indigenous Papuans, for whom it is
considerably lower. Non-published early 2000 findings
from Jayawijaya demonstrate that the fertility rate is
about 1.5 per woman for the local highland population.
Observations made between 2007 and 2010 in Puncak
Jaya and Asmat confirm that, due to Sexually Transmitted
Infections (leading to infertility), HIV mortality, and poor
nutrition, the fertility rate is well below 2 children in the
highland regions, and higher (2–3 children/woman) in the
lowland district of Asmat. The divergence contributes to
the disparities in population growth and demographic
proportions between indigenous Papuans and other
ethnic groups.97
3. 1. 2 State’s Obligation to Fulfil the Right to Health
a. Health Policies & Leadership
The Indonesian national health policy is known as
Indonesia Sehat 2015. With regard to the two Papuan
provinces, the government focused on community based
primary health care as a means to provide good health
services. An alternative health strategy for the two
provinces has not been provided. Moreover, neither
specific interventions nor allocations of resources to
address the poor health status of the (indigenous)
population have been envisaged. Nonetheless, some
specific interventions have been introduced: availability
of free generic medication and free health care services,
specific HIV services (“Safe Papua” Program) and an extra
budget for the training of indigenous midwives. Even so,
these development programs are limited in time, scope
and resources, and they are not legally protected by
provincial bylaws.
The health management is decentralised to the districts
and consequently the role of the provinces has diminished
considerably. The installation of new districts led, in many
cases, to a temporary rupture of the health service
delivery, as a new district health office has to be organised
and managed with limited capacity and resources. About
8.9 % of the general public budget and 12 % of the overall
Special Autonomy OTSUS budget is reportedly spent on
health, with large variations among the different districts.
The public health budget per capita has more than
doubled from 2004–2008.
98
However it is not clear what
proportion of these resources actually reaches people
with healthcare needs (for instance, in Puncak Jaya only
4 % of the general public budget is spent on health).
b. Availability of Health Services
Official data from the government indicate that West-
Papua has the highest rate of health centres per
population (14.2/100.000 population), in Indonesia. This
contradicts reports which claim that in Jayawijaya district
44.9 % of the population does not have healthcare and
that 72.72 % of households in and around the cities does
not have access to medical facilities.99
Due to the politics of ‘Pemekaran’ (Decentralisation) many
small districts and sub-districts have been created and
each of them has a public health centre (Pusat Kesehatan
Masyarakat, Puskesmas). However there is a deficiency of
staff; on average there is 1.2 workers/1000 inhabitants.
While each health centre, on paper, must have, midwives,
nurses, and at least one doctor, in reality, in many remote
health centres staff and managers are not present. In
both Asmat and Puncak Jaya district, health staff is at half
capacity, and the situation is worse for doctors who, in
general, according to arrangements with the government
(Pegawai Tidak Tetap, PTT) work between 6 months and
2 years in remote areas. This leads to a high turnover of
staff. Doctors are often not present in the Puskesmas as
they have private practices in the district centre and
prefer to provide consultations.100
Even if health care workers are available, they are mostly
based in the health centres and few of them go to the
communities on a regular basis. At the national level,
birth attendants are present in 73 % of cases. In Papua,
the attendance rate is estimated to be 39 %. In the
highlands and remote coastal areas this percentage is
considerably lower (around 10 %). The result is that most
Papuan women give birth without health facilities, within
their communities and for socio-cultural reasons they are
often alone or left with a traditional birth attendant
(Dukun Bayi). Furthermore, hospitals and health centres
97 Jim Elmslie. West Papuan demographic transition and the 2010 Indonesian census [electronic resource]: “slow motion genocide” or not?
CPACS Working paper no 11/1. September 2010.
98 World Bank. Papua public expenditure 2009 : The dynamic of public financial management and service delivery provision in a special
autonomy province Papua. 2009.
99 JUBIR (Jujur Bicara), ‘Medical facilities for Papuans are far from adequate’. 20th of January 2011.
100 Van de Pas, R. Human resources for health, opportunities and challenges in the Indonesian province of Papua. Royal Tropical Institute,
2010.

33
equipped to manage complications during childbirth
(such as a retained placenta or caesarean section) are
located in the cities on the coast, making the delay to
reach them often fatal for both the mother and the baby.
Part of the national strategy involves reaching the
communities via a formal health outreach service called
Posyandu; health workers support the clinics with
immunisation, growth monitoring and basic health care
in the communities. Traditionally, this work has been done
by the Paramedics (mantris), that is nurses trained by the
missionaries and incorporated into the community. In
recent years, many of them have reached the age of
retirement, and as they are not usually paid, it is not
possible to know the number of persons still working as
community health workers.
Monthly outreach immunisation and growth monitoring
programs function reasonably well, and to a lesser extent,
so does the program for antenatal care for pregnant
women. Prevention, case detection and disease control
programs for TB, HIV, STIs, diarrhoea and malaria are
largely absent outside the main cities. The response in
cases of epidemic, such as the cholera epidemic in 2008
is therefore delayed.
HIV/AIDS and STI prevention, counselling, testing and
treatment have expanded rapidly over the last 5 years. In
the main cities on the coast, the so called Voluntary
Consulting Test (VCT) centers provide treatment and the
larger hospitals (Dok-II Jayapura, RMSS Timika) provide
prevention from mother to child transmission. Local
branches of the organisation which coordinates the HIV/
AIDS response called ‘Komisi Penanggulangan AIDS, KPA’
should be available in each district. However, often,
outside the main cities, the organization does not
function, leaving NGOs and social organisations as the
sole providers of support to persons affected with HIV.
The stigma still associated to HIV/AIDS,
101
the low quality
of the treatments administered, and the frequent
unavailability of services, especially in the highlands,
restrict the number of persons who receive anti retroviral
treatment to less than 1000 cases.
c. Accessibility of the Health Services
In Papua, primary health services and medications are
provided free of charge, as under the Autonomy Law, all
Papuans are considered “poor” and hence eligible for the
health insurance scheme called Askeskin which was
introduced in 2008. Persons eligible must show an
insurance card to benefit from the health services,
however bureaucratic procedures (including fees to obtain
the card) have hindered the majority of the population
from receiving it. Health clinics, however, do accept
patients who do not have this insurance card, but this is
expected to be more strictly regulated in the future.
In general, most central Puskesmas and hospitals are
sufficiently equipped with essential medications. Due to
logistic challenges and poor management, however,
remote health clinics frequently lack medications.
Accessibility to quality services remains a big issue,
particularly, referrals for hospital care. Proper secondary
care is mostly limited to the big city hospitals and this is
a problem for people living in the hinterlands. District
authorities can only pay for transportation in cases of
acute need, and people cannot afford their own transport
or the cost of maintaining themselves. Remote district
public hospitals (RSUDs) often lack competent staff or
resources to provide good secondary care (e.g. complicated
malaria infections, AIDS and TB care, severe malnutrition,
birth complications).
Discrimination against indigenous people is also evident
in accessibility of health care services. For instance, the
private hospital Rumah Sakit Mitra Masyarakat in Timika
is managed by Caritas and it is financially supported by
PT Freeport. It provides the best quality of care in Papua,
but it provides free health services only to members of 7
ethnic groups who are resident and registered in Mimika
district, and are affected by the operations by PT Freeport.
Persons from other ethnic groups and/or residing in other
districts must pay for the services.
101 Butt L. et all. Stigma and HIV/AIDS in the highlands of Papua. UNCEN, June 2010.
Health worker with government ocer in West Papua

34
In areas affected by the current conflicts, such as the sub-
districts of Kwiyawage in former Jayawijaya district and
Tingginambut in Puncak Jaya district, health care services
have been suspended and healthcare staff are often
intimidated to prevent them for working in these areas.
d. Acceptance of the Health Care Services
Health care services in Papua are not really accepted by
the indigenous population. Generally, Papuans usually
visit the Puskesmas just for chronic infectious diseases
like TB and HIV preferring to rely on local healers who
perform rituals derived from the adat (the Indonesian
customary law). The local healing practices differ from
one ethic group to another.
The following statements demonstrate the general
mistrust among the Papuans of the healthcare system:
p“Doctor, in the hospital (RUSD) I will be given a
deadly injection by the nurses. So many of us have
already passed away after visiting the hospital” (Puncak
Jaya, 2007)
p“The epidemic has started after pendatang
(migrants) poisoned our food and our wells. They throw
in tablets so that we all got infected and now die with
diarrhoea” (Paniai, 2008)
p“We don’t want to spend the night in the hospital
for treatment. Last year a person died in the hospital.
Our soul can be taken away by this spirit and not return
to our body in the morning” (Asmat, 2010).
Another form of deeply rooted mistrust is associated with
medicines. The essential medications freely available in
the Puskesmas are generic medications administered in
the form of tablets and produced in factories in Java.
Generic tablets are regarded as inferior or even harmful
compared to branded medicines. Proper treatments are
associated with branded foreign medications administered
in the form of vials and injections. These were first
introduced in Papua by the missionaries. Papuans visit
the healthcare centres and hospitals when there is no
other alternative, but this usually happens in the latter
stages of illness, when options for treatment are limited.
Under the “Safe Papua” banner, the national government
initiated the 2008-2010 outreach program to test and
counsel HIV infected persons in the communities three
times per year. A district health team visited about five
remote communities in the district. This program
appeared to be inappropriate because it is designed just
to detect if a person is infected with HIV, but does not
provide direct treatment. It only makes a referral to a
hospital. Post-test counselling and follow-up is also poorly
managed.
For women and the elderly in particular, these difficulties
are compounded by a language barrier. Bahasa Indonesia,
the official language, is spoken in the health centres but
is not widely understood among older people or women
who, by and large, have received little formal education.
e. Quality of the Health Care System
The quality of public health services remains poor, though
there are a few exceptions, such as the public hospital at
Dok 2 in Jayapura (RSUD Dok II). In Papua, the best health
care is provided by faith-based organisations, such as the
RSMM in Timika, the Dian Harapan hospital in Waena, the
Kalvari clinic in Wamena, and the Santa Monica hospital
in Manokwari. In comparison to these private clinics,
public health services offer low quality care, with doctors
and midwives working in the public system in the
morning and in the private system later on in the day.
Private consultations are only available in the cities and
the district capitals.
Public hospitals and Puskesmas have the medications, the
new infrastructure, and the equipment (all provided by
OTSUS) to provide quality services. The deficiency is in
human resources; many health centres lack motivated,
capable, and well-managed staff. The number of young
Papuans that are trained as health workers is increasing
considerably, but many of them prefer to stay in the cities
or outside Papua rather than to work in their communities.
3. 1. 3 Right to Health of Indigenous Papuans
Indigenous concepts of health and the health conditions
to which they are particularly prone are generally not
taken into consideration by the health authorities. A
recent review on the health of the aboriginal population
in Australia concluded that there is a 17-year gap in life
expectancy between the indigenous and non-indigenous
populations in Australia. The two main reasons mentioned
are social disadvantage and a marginal position in relation
to mainstream society.
102
These findings allow for certain
comparisons between Australian aboriginals and
indigenous Papuans.
Indigenous concepts of health, illness, wellbeing and
death are considerably more comprehensive than modern
medicine recognizes. There is an emphasis on the
importance of balance. All four elements of life – physical,
102 Michael Marmot. Social determinants and the health of Indigenous Australians. Med J Aust 2011; 194 (10): 512–513.

35
emotional, mental, and spiritual wellbeing – are
intrinsically related to each other. Balance extends beyond
the individual so that good health and healing also
require that each person lives in harmony with their
community and the spirit worlds. For Indigenous peoples,
land, food, and health are key components of a good
life.103 Vul nera bil ity to me nta l i lln ess an d a lcoh ol add ict ion ,
loss of culture, land and identity, and the effect of urban
migration all seriously affect the health of indigenous
people. The Indonesian government views indigenous
Papuans as Indonesian citizens, representing several
ethnic groups in the multi-ethnic pluralistic republic.
Consequently, political space for cultural identity,
autonomy, and self-determination are restricted and this
directly marginalises and affects the well-being of the
indigenous population.
Countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand
have started special indigenous health policies to address
their specific needs and rights.104 Such measures are not
expected to be implemented by the Indonesian
government soon. Nonetheless, to improve primary health
care, the government could start by increasing the
number of skilled Papuan health workers, legalising and
protecting rituals, medicinal plants, and recognising
indigenous concepts of health.
Sexual and reproductive health protection deserves a
particular mention. Papuans are often blamed for the
spread of HIV and STI’s because they practice polygamy..
Public information on HIV prevention often includes
messages on abstinence, monogamy, fidelity, and the use
of contraception. The state policy of ‘dua anak cukup’ (two
children is enough) promotes the use of family planning
to limit population growth. The alleged involuntary
injection of hormones for family planning in the ‘80s
caused the Papuan population to be very wary of using
contraception and hormones. Prevention and treatment
require the authorities to understand and respect the
specific role and patterns of sexuality and fertility.
3. 1. 4 Conclusions
The Government addresses health services in Papua as it
would address health services in other parts of the
country. The claim is not that Papuans are discriminated
against in their access to health, but that in relation to
the particular socio-cultural, political, and environmental
circumstances, as well as in relation to the issue of HIV,
the Government does not provide sufficient attention to
the healthcare needs of the Papuan population.
Despite efforts and improvements in healthcare policies,
budgets and services; access and availability to health
services have not really improved for the Papuan
population over the last years. Healthcare is focused on
basic healthcare services, rather than on prevention or on
addressing the root causes of the generally poor state of
health among the population.
When health services are available, they do not address
the specific concerns of the communities. Trust,
communication, and incorporation of values, languages,
and indigenous health concepts are key to this. This
requires leadership at the district, provincial and national
level, as well as the cooperation between the state, the
church, the organisations and the adat representatives.
103 Prof Malcolm King PhD, Alexandra Smith MD, Prof Michael Gracey MD. Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap.
The Lancet - 4 July 2009 ( Vol. 374, Issue 9683, Pages 76-85 ).
104 Prof Ian Anderson MBBS,Sue Crengle MBChB,Martina Leialoha Kamaka MD,Tai-Ho Chen MD,Neal Palafox MD,Lisa Jackson-Pulver PhD.
Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. The Lancet – 27 May 2006 ( Vol. 367, Issue 9524, Pages 1775–1785 ).
Basic health service for the indigenous Papuan

36
3. 2 MIFEE: The Merauke Integrated Food
and Energy Estate
3. 2. 1 Introduction
On 11 August 2010, the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture
officially launched the Merauke Integrated Food and
Energy Estate (MIFEE), a mega project covering 1.28
million hectares in Merauke regency, southern Papua.105
MIFEE is an extensive collection of commercial plantations
meant to be part of the President Yudhoyono’s vision to
“feed Indonesia, feed the world”. The proposed plantation
development is based on overly optimistic economic
assumptions and it does not take into full account its
social implications and environmental impacts. The
project, as such, poses a threat to the culture, livelihoods,
and identity of indigenous Papuans in the Merauke area.
So far, at least 36 investors have secured concession
permits. Most companies are Indonesian, but Japanese,
Korean, Singaporean and Middle Eastern companies are
also involved.
107
The principle commodities to be produced
under the umbrella of MIFEE are timber, palm oil, corn,
soya bean and sugar cane.
Given the vast land areas designated for plantation, the
large financial investments involved, and the pressure to
proceed with the implementation of the MIFEE program,
there are numerous risks requiring urgent consideration
by all stakeholders. The issues linked to MIFEE and
outlined below are likely to become more widespread.
There are indications that investments are being driven
through at a rate that is overwhelming for local
communities whose lands are targeted and, as a result,
their capacity to respond and protect their own interests
is limited.
Highlighted below are some of the main risk areas, their
implications for the local population and the environment,
and recommendations for corrective action.
3. 2. 2 Land-grabbing – the Papua Context
Officially, the goal of MIFEE is food and fuel production.
In reality, there are powerful vested interests, among
others in the military, which are pushing this project
forward to reach different goals.
105 Figures for the actual size of the project vary. The ocial figure in 2010 was 1.282.833 ha to be cultivated over a period of 20 years, but
1.6.000 ha is the most quoted figure. However, the area covered by the designated concessions totals 2.051.157 ha (see Figure 2 map).
Recent reports (in many newspapers, including the Merauke Post, 15 February 2011) suggest that the new Regency Head (Bupati) of
Merauke, Romanus Mbaraka, has negotiated with the central government for a reduction in the designated area to 500.000 ha.
106 ‘Indonesia: Hope and Hard Reality in Papua’, Asia Briefing No.126, Jakarta/Brussels, International Crisis Group, p.15, 22 August 2011.
Available at http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B126%20Papua%20-%20Hope%20and%20
Hard%20Reality.pdf.
107 BAPINDA, May 2010 and Warta Ekonomi, March 2010.
Map of West Papua106

37
MIFEE is part of a global land-grabbing phenomenon.
108
Powerful national and international economic actors –
from corporations to governments – have identified
Merauke as an empty land and a site for fuel and food
production.109 However, MIFEE is different from most land-
grab projects because of the military-business-political
framework and the climate of political intimidation and
oppression present in West Papua. It is situated in a
context of political fragility and insecurity and is driven
by strong political and corporate interests.
The Papuans’ experiences of Freeport and former
transmigration programmes are likely to have a great
influence on how their resistance to MIFEE develops.
110
However, local communities lack vital information about
the impacts of MIFEE and the power imbalance means
that they are in a weak position when it comes to
responding to powerful corporate investors in an effective
way.
Key players in MIFEE, on the contrary, all have political
connections. The Comexindo Group, for example, is owned
by Hashim Djojohadikusumo, the brother of ex-Kopassus
general and son-in-law of Soeharto, Prabowo Subianto.111
In this case, the lines between political, security, and
corporate interests appears, at best, blurred.
3. 2. 3 Economic, social and cultural impacts of MIFEE
Socio-cultural gap: A report published in 2010
112
by the
Jakarta-based NGO PUSAKA provides the most
comprehensive study to date on the social, cultural,
political, and economic implications of MIFEE. It concludes
that MIFEE is not designed to provide jobs or development
for the local population because their way of living off
the land as hunter-gatherers has not prepared them for
commercial farming or equipped them with the necessary
skills or technical knowledge.
A number of indigenous communities live in the MIFEE
designated area, including the Malind, Muyu, Mandobo,
Auyu and Mappi peoples. They are essentially hunter-
gatherers whose livelihoods depend on collecting wild
foods and hunting rather than farming. They use various
dwelling sites in the forest, which is also where their
ancestral lands and sacred sites are located. Thus, their
culture and way of life is very much embedded in their
land and resources and these cannot easily be replaced
or re-located elsewhere. The direct and indirect
consequences of MIFEE will be the wiping out of
customary land tenures, in areas targeted by the project,
and their full incorporation into the state system for
controlling land.113
Migration: The regency’s population of 230.000–250.000
will not be enough to meet the labour requirements of
MIFEE. Estimates vary greatly about the number of
migrant workers to be expected, but even conservative
predictions suggest that the current population of
Merauke would at least double if the project is fully
implemented. This would dramatically change the
demographics of the region. For local indigenous
communities these changes will have severe social and
economic implications. The scale of MIFEE and the
expected influx of migrant workers will displace these
communities from their customary lands and livelihoods,
bringing a drastic change to their way of life and culture.
Food and energy…or pure economics? Although planned
as a “food and energy estate,” the largest part of the
project will be mainly dedicated to industrial timber
plantations (over 970.000 ha), oil palm (over 300.000 ha)
and food crops (69.000 ha).
114
These data suggest that
MIFEE is hardly motivated by food and energy security
concerns but pure economic interests.
108 Borras Jr., S. and Franco, J. C. 2010. Towards a broader view of the politics of global land grab: rethinking land issues, reframing resistance.
ICAS Working Paper Series 001. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI).
109 Ibid: 209.
110 Longgena Ginting and Oliver Pye, 2011. Resisting Agribusiness development: The Merauke Food and Energy Estate in West Papua,
Indonesia. Land Deal Politics Initiative.
111 Ginting and Pye, ibid.
112 Zakaria, Y., E.O. Kleden, and F. Samperante. 2010. Beyond Malind imagination: Beberapa catatan atas upaya percepatan pembangunan cq.
Merauke Integrated Food and Estate (MIFEE) di Kabupaten Merauke, Papua, dan kesiapan masyarakat adat setempat dalam menghadapi
nya. Jakarta: Pusat Studi dan Advokasi Hak-hak Masyarakat Adat (PUSAKA).
113 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/30/mifee-must-benefit-indigenous-papuans-everyone.html Note: Indonesia’s legal
framework means that indigenous peoples are weakly protected when companies seek access to forests and lands. See M Colchester, P
Anderson, and Ahmad Zazali, 2010, Field Dialogue on Free, Prior, Informed Consent, Briefing Paper, the Forests Dialogue.
114 http://www.vhrmedia.com/MIFEE-Is-Damaging-Food-Security-in-Papua-news5751.html and Ginting and Pye, op. cit.

38
Environmental impacts and sustainable livelihood: MIFEE
extends into the so-called “Trans-Fly” eco-region in
southern New Guinea, bordered by the Digul and Fly
rivers, which consists of savannah, grasslands, wetlands,
reeds and monsoon forest.115 The Trans-Fly contains a
network of fresh-water streams and rivers that drain
southwards towards the southern plains. From the
environmental perspective, planned agricultural and
industrial timber plantations are likely to have a severe
impact on the endemic wildlife in the area. There is a risk
of toxic waste pollution to the rivers and streams that
provide people with drinking water and fish, further
undermining the ability of local Papuans to meet their
livelihood needs and their right to clean water. Besides
that, MIFEE is disastrous for the existing forests in
Merauke. Greenomics calculated that if the government
continues its plan to develop 1.600.000 million hectares
in Merauke, some 1.100.000 hectares of the land would
be from the conversion of areas classified as forests.116
The clearing of forests and land to this extent will also
have major climate-change implications. Furthermore,
MIFEE will seriously weaken the ability of local
communities to adapt to climate change in the future.
There are real fears that these changes will lead to the
further marginalization and impoverishment of
indigenous Papuans who will end up on the lowest rung
of the economic ladder. The large influx of migrants will
reduce the relative number of Papuans and constrain their
access to political and economic power.117
3. 2. 4 Security Concerns and the Potential for Conflicts
Ver tic al: Merauke occupies a key strategic position as
Indonesia’s south-easternmost regency with a land border
with Papua New Guinea and a sea border with Australia.
The regular district military command (KODIM) is
reinforced by ‘non-organic’ troops deployed for border
security, but in addition to that function, this military
presence plays a significant role in protecting and
promoting the interests of corporate investors involved
in MIFEE and other projects.
The presence of the Army often makes local communities
fearful of challenging companies, lodging complaints
115 Bowe, Michael (2007) “One Landscape, Two Lands: What the international border means for community-based natural resource
conservation in southern New Guinea” WWF Indonesia, available at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildplaces/ng/pubs/TransFly_and_
transboundary.pdf.
116 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/24/food-estate-projects-dig-deeper-forests.html.
117 PUSAKA, 2010 and Ito et al. 2011.
118 http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/24/what-did-i-do-wrong.
119 Ginting and Pye, op. cit.
120 See UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
about their activities, or insisting that companies meet
their commitments. Military personnel also play an active
role in persuading communities to accept MIFEE
investments on their land. Most companies employ
people with a military or intelligence background to
influence communities to accept foreign investments as
well as to protect the projects, and the interests of the
companies once they are operational. Alliances are also
created between local government officials and police
and military personnel making it difficult for communities
to resist or challenge the companies.
Kopassus special forces troops are present in the area and
supportive of corporate interests. Their involvement in
human rights violations in Merauke was highlighted in a
2009 Human Rights Watch report, ‘What Did I Do
Wrong?’118
Horizontal: As indigenous Papuans are being increasingly
exploited and marginalized, ‘horizontal’ conflicts between
indigenous Papuans and migrants, and between villages
and clans over land ownership and compensation is a
possible threat that should not be ignored. There is a
friction that could potentially lead to clashes, between
the indigenous Papuans resisting the project and migrant
farmers living in Merauke who tend to welcome the
project because of the opportunities the project could
afford them.119
The interests of the two groups are contradictory and it
will be difficult to overcome this gap.
3. 2. 5 Grassroots Experiences of MIFEE
By mid 2011, more than half-a-dozen of the investors
granted permits for MIFEE are thought to have started
working in their concession areas, including companies
associated with the powerful Medco and Rajawali groups.
Indigenous peoples’ right to give or withhold their free,
prior and informed consent is recognized under
international law.120 However, this right has not been
implemented in the Indonesian legal system. Even the
limited rights that communities may have to oppose a
project are, in practice, largely rendered ineffective for
different reasons.

39
121 Kompas Daily, 6 August 2010.
122 TAPOL and Down to Earth, the International Campaign for Ecological Justice, 2010: http://tapol.gn.apc.org/press/files/pr100811.html.
123 Ginting and Pye, op. cit.
124 Takeshi Ito, Noer Fauzi Rachman, Laksmi A. Savitri, 2011. Naturalizing Land Dispossession: A Policy Discourse Analysis of the Merauke
Integrated Food and Energy Estate. Land Deal Politics Initiative.
125 Information provided to TAPOL by a protected source, April 2011.
126 tabloidjubi.com, April 20th 2011.
1) Usually, local people do not have enough information
on and a proper understanding of the project because
there is no opportunity for them to consult with the
companies running the projects. The result is that while
negotiating with these large corporations, local people
are in a weak and exploitable position which consequently
exposes them to abuses. Many hectares of land that once
belonged to local peoples have been handed over in
exchange for money, motorcycles, or outboard motors,
but such transactions ultimately leave indigenous peoples
worse off.121
2) The authorities and investors use different tactics to
obtain locals’ consent. These include:
pUsing security personnel to influence and intimidate
communities;
pAccusing those who resist or challenge the
companies of supporting separatism or being associated
with the OPM;
pDiscriminating against communities that oppose
MIFEE investments in the allocation of local government
development aid;
pSecuring a deal with one village in order to persuade
the neighboring ones to sign up.
Thanks to monitoring activities conducted on the ground,
numerous examples of the issues delineated above have
been identified.
Case Background
July 2010
Death of the journalist
Ardiansyah Matra’is
Ardiansyah Matra’is was found dead in the Gudang Arang River, Merauke. The death was
linked to his reporting of upcoming local elections in Merauke which generated intense poli-
tical debate over MIFEE.122
December 2009 onwards
Bribes and corruption in
Zenegi village
A subsidiary of the Medco Group, PT. SelarasInti Persada (PT.SIS), operated in lands belon-
ging to the village of Zenegi. PT.SIS planned to set up a wood chip plantation in the village.
Local indigenous leaders were persuaded to give away their forest resources for 300 million
rupiah in December 2009. Village youths blamed their elders for giving up their forests. The
“gift” gave Medco the right to log timber for a fee of 2000 rupiah per m³ although the
normal rate is ten times higher.123
August 2010
Oil palm plantation
launched without
informed consent in
Serapu village
MIFEE was officially launched in Serapu village by the then Regency Head, Johannes
Gluba-Gebze, in August 2010, shortly before his term of office ended. However, villagers had
not been informed about what was actually being launched. They only realized several
weeks later. When bulldozers started to demolish their sago forests, they realized that this
was the ‘ceremony of the dispossession of their land’. Villagers have been completely
excluded from benefiting in any way from their customary land.124
November 2010
Domande villagers
fleeced of
compensation
Villagers in Domande agreed on a 6-billion rupiah compensation package with the powerful
Rajawali group to surrender lands to be used for sugar-cane plantations. Within the first
few days after the payment was made, traders from Merauke descended on the community
to sell goods ranging from massage oils, to jeans, to motor bikes at up to 10–20 times the
common market price. Despite the fact that there’s no signal anywhere near the village,
even mobile phones were sold. Most of the money has now been spent, leaving the villagers
without land or compensation.125
April 2011
Disturbance at Medco
office involving aggrie-
ved locals in Okaba
District, Kampung
Sanggase
On April 20th 2011, around 20 people from Kampung Sanggase, Okaba District, in traditio-
nal attire, went to the Medco Papua office to claim the sum of 65-billion rupiah they should
have received as compensation for having agreed to give away their land. Angered by the
lack of response from the company, the local people entered the office and started banging
and kicking chairs and tables. Frightened Medco workers ran through the back door.126 To
date the company continues to deny clarifications regarding compensation. The locals do
not see evidence of goodwill on the part of the company to compensate them for their
forests and land that have been used by the companies for over three years. The company
allegedly claimed that a traditional ceremony to reject the project was an independence
ceremony. This led to the deployment of the military to quell the disturbance.
Table 1: Specific cases related to MIFEE

40
3. 2. 6 Conclusion
MIFEE represents a real challenge and threat to the social
and economic rights of indigenous Papuans in Merauke.
The government and powerful corporate interests are
planning a food and energy mega-project which will
completely change the demographics of the region and
will involve the loss of lands, resources, livelihoods and
cultural heritage of indigenous communities embedded
in these territories. The overall impact on the indigenous
peoples is going to be potentially catastrophic unless
urgent action is taken to protect them.
The reaction of Indigenous peoples and NGOs to the
project has been impressive. This gives us the hope that
there is a real possibility to stop major parts of the MIFEE
project before they are implemented.
This will also largely depend on the capacity to extend
the opposition to the project to build political space for
the communities so they will be able to advocate for the
recognition and protection of their rights, to press existing
and potential investors, to empower local communities
to ensure that agri-business will be carried out
sustainably, and to ensure that responsibility for future
damages is identified a priori.127
3. 3 Palm Oil in Papua
Indigenous Papuans consider palm oil, the main
commodity designed to replace forest and traditional
lands, a threat to their livelihood, food security and
cultural identity. The governments of Indonesia and
several districts of Papua and West Papua are pursuing
their plans to develop seven million hectares of land and
forests for large-scale palm oil plantations in Papua and
West Papua.
Papua has already more than 25 years of experience with
palm oil plantations, though on a smaller scale than the
current developments. Until recently (2006), 21 companies
hold land concessions on about half a million hectares
proposed for palm oil in both Papua and West Papua. An
estimated 38,000 hectares of these concessions have been
planted with oil palms, equal to only 7.6 % of the
designated area. Experiences with these old plantations,
including state and private plantations in Manokwari and
Bintuni Bay (West Papua), and Keerom, Jayapura and
Boven Digul (in Papua province), show a high rate of
destruction of primary forest – which leads to negative
ecological impacts like erosion and floods – and a very
low level of productivity. Also, access to water and wildlife
is increasingly limited.
The local population has been persuaded, in some cases
forced, by security personnel to agree to the transfer of
their traditional land. Military personnel are stationed at
the plantations as security guards, creating an
environment of fear and an increase in the likelihood of
incidents of human rights abuse. Experience shows that
indigenous peoples have lost access to their traditional
land and livelihood, are rarely able to find jobs as
plantation workers or farmers, and are marginalized by
migrants from other Indonesian islands. Several
researchers suggest that living standards of indigenous
Papuan communities has declined in respect of
environmental, economic, social, and cultural conditions.
3. 3. 1 Land Grabbing and Marginalization of Indigenous
Peoples
In contrast to past palm oil activities, the current
expansion of agro-industrial estates is on a far greater
scale. Several politically powerful business groups –
including the former son-in-law of the President Soeharto,
Prabowo Subianto, and the oil tycoon Arifin Panigoro – are
involved in large-scale land acquisitions in Jayapura and
Keerom districts, as well as in Manokwari and Merauke.
In particular the Southern districts Merauke, Boven Digul
and Mappi are expected to convert up to four million
hectares of land and forests for food and agro-energy
estates. Civil society groups, churches and indigenous
leaders are being pressured to support the implementation
of the estates, with the effect that horizontal conflicts
evolve within civil society, church institutions, and
communities.
Since 2008, thousands of hectares have been allocated
for palm oil cultivation in Merauke, Manokwari and
Keerom. In August 2010, the Merauke Integrated Food
and Energy Estate (MIFEE), was officially launched. At the
moment, this is the most ambitious project, as it is
expected to involve half a million hectares of land
belonging to the Malind tribal groups.
The MIFEE scheme has been condemned by several
groups, including the Indigenous Peoples Alliance (AMAN)
and the Justice and Peace Secretariat of the Catholic
Church’s Merauke diocese (SKP-KAM), for various reasons.
There are serious concerns that migrant workers will
outnumber vulnerable Papuan tribal groups, thus leading
to dramatic demographic and cultural change in Merauke.
On 23 April 2010, before MIFEE was launched, in a
statement presented to the 9th session of the UN
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, AMAN stressed
127 Ginting and Pye, op. cit.

41
that the demographic changes that will be caused by
MIFEE will “acutely threaten the existence of Indigenous
Peoples”.128 In other territories, such as Manokwari,
indigenous peoples are expected to move to the
remaining forests and surrender their land and territories
to public or private business-interests. It seems that palm
oil companies will resume the controversial transmigration
program.129 Relocation of local inhabitants and new
transmigration can contribute to horizontal conflicts,
particularly in sensitive areas such as Papua.
There have been episodes of intimidations which have
been denounced by local activists opposing the project.
These people are forced to remain anonymous to avoid
violent retaliation. The murder of the journalist
Ardiansyah Matra’is in Merauke is possibly linked to his
investigation into the MIFEE project. He was foundnaked,
handcuffed and tortured in Maro River in mid 2010.130
b. Palm Oil and Human Rights
There are three main categories of human rights
violations related to the palm oil industry:
“institutionalized” violations linked to development
policies and laws resulting in forced eviction and
relocation; the violation of the right to food and adequate
standards of living; the violation of the freedom of
expression.
Despite the fact that episodes of intimidation and tension
are widespread in the palm oil business, data on human
rights violations in Papua is difficult to obtain, mostly due
to the fear of retaliation. According to data from the
Indonesian palm oil farmers union SPKS, in 2010, 129
palm oil farmers have been brutalised and 20 have been
murdered across Indonesia.
In Papua, people are forcibly evicted for the economic
interests of the palm oil companies and the Indonesian
legal framework does not impede such action. Although
the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia
acknowledges “customary law communities,” the State
maintains control over lands and natural resources so
they can be used for the benefit of the entire population.
The Agrarian Law also recognises customary rights,
however, as they are operated over state lands, the
development projects cannot be opposed.
Under the Forestry Law, nearly all forests are within the
jurisdiction of the state. Moreover, new laws and
regulations simplify the acquisition of lands for the sake
of the national interests; this includes, however, interests
related to agro-industry and palm oil plantations.
The national legal framework thus benefits large-scale
business and it neglects the economical, social and
cultural rights of the local and indigenous peoples.
Moreover, it creates a context within which a wide array
of human rights violations occurs. For instance, relocated
people often face extreme poverty and the denial of other
basic rights such as the right to have access to water.
Mr. Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the
right to food, denounced large-scale land acquisitions as
“land grabbing” and a threat to human rights.131 According
to de Schutter, land acquisitions particularly affect
indigenous peoples, therefore each state has to guarantee
full respect of their rights, as affirmed in the 2007 UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.132
Ty pi ca l ly, th e p r in c ip le o f f re e , pr i or, an d i n fo rm e d c on s en t
is one of the most neglected. Traditional leaders are often
tricked, defrauded and even coerced to release lands and
forests. In addition, they are unaware of the fact that the
released lands become state lands and, as such, traditional
land tenure rights will no longer be applicable.
AMAN concludes that “large-scale business in Indigenous
Te rr i to r i es , w i t ho u t t he i r Fr e e , P ri o r an d I nf o rm e d Co n s en t
(FPIC) will only exacerbate the human rights situation,
leading to forced evictions and other human rights
violations”.133
128 AMAN’s Statement before the 9th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York, 23 April 2010, http://www.aman.
or.id/en/component/content/article/7/179.html.
129 Dinamika Transmigrasi, Rencana Penandatangan MOU dengan Investor, DepNakerTrans, 2007. http://www.nakertrans.go.id/statistik_
trans/DINAMIKA %20TRANS/2007/JUNI/DT_juni02.php.
130 ASIAN Forum for Human Rights and Development, Joint Press Statement on the Murders of Two IndonesianJournalists, 28 August 2010,
http://www.forum-asia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2619&Itemid=129.
131 ‘UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to food recommends principles and measures to discipline “land grabbing”’, UN Press Release, 11
June 2009, at p. 1. http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/5A171ADA855BF615C12575D30010CEBF?opendocument.
132 Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of core principles and measures to address the human rights challenge. Mr. Olivier De
Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 11 June 2009, p. 7–8, 12. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/BriefingNo-
telandgrab.pdf.
133 AMAN’s Statement before the 9th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York, 23 April 2010, http://www.aman.
or.id/en/component/content/article/7/179.html.

42
We conclude that:
pThe UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples should conduct a thematic study on
large-scale development projects including palm oil
estates in Papua and their impacts on cultural integrity
and the human rights situations of indigenous peoples.
pFurthermore, the Government of Indonesia should
invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples and the UN Special Rapporteur on
the Rights to Food, to visit and report on the situation
of Indigenous Peoples in Papua and West Papua
affected by palm oil and other agro-industrial
development.
pRelevant institutions should urge companies to
uphold the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent
and comply with the UN Norms for Multinationals on
Human Rights and labour conditions, and comply with
national and international human rights and labour
laws.
We recommend the Government of Indonesia to:
pUphold its obligations under international law,
including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women.
pUphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
pRevise laws, regulations and practices which
discriminate against, and override the rights of,
indigenous peoples. Revise laws such as Investment Law
No 25/2007, and Presidential Regulation 65/2006 to
ensure that communities obtain the right to Free, Prior
and Informed Consent.
Section 4 - Vulnerable Groups
4. 1 Women’s Rights in Papua and West Papua
“Everywhere, we are being raped and subjected to
sexual molestation, in prisons, out in the fields,
whenever seeking refuge, whenever the army and the
police conduct operations in the name of security,
and even in our own homes. We are victims of
violence. And when we scream for help, they reply
that it’s a family matter.” […] “Everywhere, we are
increasingly facing the danger of HIV/AIDS and our
lives are being lost. For how much longer will this
situation continue?” Hana Hikoyabi, the deputy chair
of the MRP, “The Day to Combat Violence against
Women”, Jayapura, December 2010.
This quote summarises the situation of Papuan women
in an adequate manner. Papuan women have been
suffering from violence, discrimination, and other forms
of abuses both outside and inside their homes for the
past 40 years, and they have done so in silence.134
134 http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FAT-021-2011.
135 Stop Sudah!! Kesaksian Perempuan Papua Korban Kekerasan dan Pelanggaran HAM 1963–2009: http://komnasperempuan.or.id/
publikasi/Indonesia/materi %20publikasi/Laporan %20Pemantauan/new_buku %20laporan %20stop %20sudah %20papua_revisi %20
04102010.pdf.
136 http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FAT-021-2011.
Most of the information reported here is drawn from the
recently published report STOP SUDAH!135 concerning
violence and human rights violations perpetrated against
women between 1963 and 2009 in Papua. The report is
the result of the collaboration between 19 Indigenous
women and 3 men from 11 organizations across Papua,
Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), Komnas Perempuan, together
with the International Center for Transitional Justice.
136
In 18 months, the team collected 261 stories of women
survivors in 11 kabupatens (regencies).
The report distinguishes between three types of violence:
pState violence against women;
pDomestic violence;
pSerial violence (multiple or combined forms of
violence).
The report does not contain a lot of information on the
situation of Papuan women in 2010. However, since the

43
137 http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FAT-021-2011.
abovementioned collaboration successfully collected and
documented 261 cases of human rights violations against
women, there is some hope that a more structured
documentation of cases will take place in the future.
4. 1. 1 State Violence against Women
The national security approach implemented in Papua
allows for acts of violence by the law enforcement
personnel, especially towards women.
STOP SUDAH! documents 138 cases of state violence
against women, mostly perpetrated by the security forces.
As result of the political conflict, Papuan women are often
targets of violence. The cases portray both sexual violence,
such as rape, sex slavery, forced abortion, as well as
abuses not specifically related to sex, such as displacement
during military action, murder, imprisonment, and
disappearances. The Special Autonomy Law has not
prevented the occurrence of human rights violations
against women, on the contrary, cases of rape and other
forms of abuse by the military have continued to take
place after the “reformasi” in 1998, and the Special
Autonomy Law, in 2001. The report identifies 57 such
cases that occurred in the period 1999–2009. The
identified perpetrators are the Brimob (Mobile Brigade of
Indonesian Police), the Indonesian Police, and the
Indonesian National Armed Forces TNI (Tentara Nasional
Indonesia).
The crimes by the military, brimob and police that were
documented since 1963 include:
Crime Number of cases
Killings and
disappearances 8 cases
Attempted killings
and shootings 5 cases
Illegal detention 18 cases
Assault 21 cases
Tor t ure 9 cases
Sexual torture 6 cases
Rape 52 cases
Attempted rape 2 cases
Sexual slavery 5 cases
Sexual exploitation 9 cases
Forced contraception or
abortion 4 cases
Displacement 24 cases
Table 3: Types of state violence against women
Actor Number
of cases
1963–1998
Number
of cases
1999–2009
Brimob 212
Police 4 5
Military 71 41
Other (mobs,
intelligence,
companies)
9 3
Table 2: Actors of state violence against women
4. 1. 2 Domestic violence
The report documents 98 cases of violence that occurred
in households (Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga – KDRT).
Indigenous women report high rates of domestic violence
perpetrated by their husbands or partners, while receiving
little protection from police or state agencies. Ironically,
the funding component of the Special Autonomy package
granted to Papua since 2001 seems to have increased the
level of alcohol consumption, unprotected sex, and
incidents of domestic violence.137
Gender discrimination is partly rooted in the Papuan
custom (Adat), and so violence against women is
tolerated. Gender based discrimination, with regard to
division of roles, property, inheritance, and participation
in decision making processes is very common as well.

44
With regard to domestic violence, the report documents
various forms of abuse. These are outlined below.
Crime
(Indonesian)
Crime
(English)
Number
of cases
Poligami Polygamy 22
Selingkuh Adultery 22
Penganiayaan Abuse /
violence 58
Penelantaran
ekonomi
Economic
abandonment 51
Ancaman Threat 15
Pembatasan
aktivitas/
ruang gerak
Restriction of
activities/
movement
3
Aniaya Ill treatment,
oppression 4
Perkosaan
Anak
Rape of
children 2
Caci maki Psychological
abuse 6
Perkosaan
dalam
perkawinan
Rape within
the marriage 7
Dihina Humiliation 1
Tertular HIV/
AIDS
Transmittance
of HIV/Aids 5
Pemaksaan/
dipaksa kawin
Forced
marriage 3
Table 4: Types of domestic violence
4. 1. 3 Serial violence
The investigation team of STOP SUDAH! has identified
cases where female victims of human rights violations
were later subjected to domestic violence because of the
stigma attached to victims of human rights abuses. In
total 14 of such cases were found.
4. 1. 4 Conditions Contributing to Violence against
Indigenous Women in Papua
Looking at the stories and cases collected by the reporting
team, it can be concluded that in Papua various factors
contribute to the ongoing violence against indigenous
women:
pThe central government maintains a national
security approach which leads to violence, including
specific gender violence and impunity for the
perpetrators of human rights violations.
pThere is discrimination against women in the Papuan
indigenous culture which leads to a tolerance of
violence against women.
pThe ongoing conflict over natural resources, the
political situation, and the local-to-national-level
struggle for power have contributed to the creation of a
context of violence against women, both in the public
and private realms.
pA clear response from the government and the
political will to address violence against women are
clearly lacking. Proper legislation exists, but it is not
implemented.
pIndigenous Papuan women who experience violence
and abuse do not have access to social security services.
This, coupled with the fact that impunity exists at all
levels of the Indonesian government,138 reinforces the
trend of the victimization of women and causes many
to live in a state of perpetual distress.139
4. 1. 5 Impact of Natural Resources Exploitation on
Women’s Rights
The continued conflict over natural resources and the
huge influx of investors create a context of increased
vulnerability for Papuan women. The New Order regime
under President Soeharto opened up opportunities for
large scale exploitation of natural resources in Papua, with
hundreds of new contracts for mining, logging, palm oil
plantation, oil and gas, as well as various other
development projects. Various forms of violence against
women have occurred in relation to mining, oil palm
plantations and other industries.
138 Report written by Rev. Socratez Sofyan Yoman, President of the West Papuan Baptist Churches, July 2005.
139 Stop Sudah!! Kesaksian Perempuan Papua Korban Kekerasan dan Pelanggaran HAM 1963–2009: http://komnasperempuan.or.id/
publikasi/Indonesia/materi %20publikasi/Laporan %20Pemantauan/new_buku %20laporan %20stop %20sudah %20papua_revisi %20
04102010.pdf.

45
140 Stop Sudah!! Kesaksian Perempuan Papua Korban Kekerasan dan Pelanggaran HAM 1963 – 2009: http://komnasperempuan.or.id/
publikasi/Indonesia/materi %20publikasi/Laporan %20Pemantauan/new_buku %20laporan %20stop %20sudah %20papua_revisi %20
04102010.pdf.
141 Down To Earth (2007). The impacts of oil palm plantations on women: http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/old-site/74eim.htm.
142 Chesterfield, N (2006). Terror-razing the forest: http://www.forestnetwork.net/rhw/pdf/Terror-razingtheForest.pdf.
143 Jakarta Post (2011): http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/24/housewives-account-most-hivaids-cases-papua-govt.html.
The expanding investment in palm oil plantations and
other types of industry poses a threat to the basic right
to life. Families lose their customary land rights and are
displaced and unable to access new employment
opportunities as investors employ workers from outside
Papua. Besides violations occurring in connection to palm
oil plantations and other projects involving land
exploitation, Papuan women are exposed to other social
problems. For instance, many women used to collect sago
(starch extracted from certain types of palm trees – a
major staple food) from their ancestral lands. Once these
lands are converted to plantations140 they will lose their
occupation as well as their position in the society.
Women have been excluded from the decision making
process regarding new development projects, despite the
fact that they were used to holding important roles in
the management of natural resources and the
maintenance of sustainable livelihoods to support their
families.141
Many cases of sexual violence related to plantations,
mines, and illegal smuggling of natural resources, such as
timber, have also been registered. In a 2006 report, Nick
Chesterfield writes about the reality of women living on
the border of a timber smuggling route: “Wherever they
[the smugglers] tread, they leave behind a wake of
violence and intimidation”. However, sexual slavery is not
limited to the smugglers. Prostitution is so common near
logging camps in ESP and Sandaun that up to half of the
women are believed to have had some personal
experience of prostitution. It is common for loggers and
other “white [Indonesians] men” to go there to look for
women and girls. “Many times, these women disappear
for days at a time, and then come back bruised, used and
abused. Local women are often forcibly kidnapped from
their villages and taken to the logging camps. They are
then forced to perform sex acts on loggers and Police,
and sometime have to “service” the whole camps.”142
4. 1. 6 HIV/Aids and Women
Papua has the highest HIV/AIDS rate (2.4 %) in Indonesia.
The Indonesian National AIDS commission blames
extramarital sexual relations for this. Most of the infected
women are indeed housewives who have contracted HIV
through their unfaithful husbands.
Another vulnerable group are sex workers.
143
The AIDS
commission declared that the gender gap is largely
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS, because under
feudal traditions still present in Papua women have to be
submissive to men, even if that means putting themselves
at risk of contracting diseases. Alcoholism and unsafe
sexual intercourse among young generations have also
contributed to the spread of the infection.
Kekerasan Negara = State violence
KDRT = Domestic violence
Kekerasan Berlapis = Incidents of parties suering repeated violence
Kekerasan Dalam Masyarakat = Violence within the Papuan society

46
Victor C. Mambor, the coordinator of Stop AIDS Now!
Papua has said that: “The weak promotion of women’s
rights leaves them with no bargaining power in facing
men, and this has contributed to the increasing prevalence
of HIV/AIDS among housewives”144.
4. 2 Indigenous Peoples
Indonesia has not yet ratified the ILO Convention No. 169
on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, but it has been one of
the countries that have consistently supported the
adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, since 2006.
Although Indonesia has adopted some national laws, for
example those related to Mining (UU No. 11/1967) or
Forestry (UU No. 5/1967) which contains the government’s
obligation to acknowledge and protect indigenous
peoples´ rights, indigenous Papuans are still heavily
marginalized in the name of development and national
state policies. The Special Autonomy law, despite the fact
that it contains several articles to ensure the protection
of indigenous cultural rights (UU No. 21/2001, pasal 44)
and land rights (UU No. 21/2001, pasal 38 [ayat 2] & pasal
43 [ayat 1–5]), it fails to protect indigenous Papuans from
land rights violations and exploitation.
Many Papuans are thoroughly disappointed in the Special
Autonomy Law which, to date, has failed to bring any
positive change for indigenous peoples in Papua.
Particularly, with regard to land rights protection, the
central and local government has not shown any
commitment towards indigenous groups and has failed
to provide assistance in land rights issues, such as Free,
Prior and Informed Consent procedures (UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 11 [2]), for
indigenous communities.
Until now there has not been clear frameworks dealing
with customary land rights and most indigenous Papuans
do not understand their rights or the commercial value
of their land (ICG, 19 July 2007, p. 5). In particular, those
whose settlements and villages are located in areas of
commercial interest of private investors lost their land
and suffered displacement as result of violations of their
rights.
Besides the lack of effective legal protection at the
national level, indigenous Papuans have to face increasing
marginalization caused by uncontrolled migration and
related national government policies. In 2010, gross
violations of indigenous peoples´ rights occurred mainly
as the result of military sweeping operations conducted
in the Puncak Jaya region (central highlands), and in
conjunction with ongoing mining activities in the Paniai
Regency and huge agricultural projects like the Merauke
Integrated Food & Energy Estate (MIFEE). Particularly in
regions like Raja Ampat, Paniai and Mimika, where mining
companies operate close to indigenous communities,
indigenous peoples have to face a permanent presence
of police and military forces.
The security forces are paid by the companies to protect
their mining operations and create a climate of
intimidation among the indigenous local population. The
situation going on in the US based Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc. mine in Mimika Regency (Grasberg
Mine) is a clear example; security forces take advantage
of lucrative security contracts signed with the US
corporation and therefore do not have any interest in
creating a conflict-free environment (Braithwaite et. al.,
March 2010, p. 71).
4. 2. 1 Displacement
In 2010, cases of displacement of indigenous Papuans
resulted from military sweeping operations in Puncak Jaya
Regency (IDMC, 13 October 2010), development projects
like the MIFEE project in Merauke Regency (Zakaria,
Kleden, Franky, January 2011, p. 67) and tribal clashes in
Mimika Regency (Jakarta Globe, 24 May 2010 / Jakarta
Post, 25 May 2010).
In May and June 2010, an unknown number of indigenous
Papuans were internally displaced by several military
sweeping operations against OPM rebels in the central
highlands Regency of Puncak Jaya. Since the Army has
denied access to the remote region to several
organizations which sought to provide basic humanitarian
help and healthcare to the victims, the number of
displaced people can only be estimated between several
hundred to several thousands. During the sweeping
operations, indigenous villagers in the Puncak Jaya
Regency had to flee to the forests where access to food,
shelter, water, and healthcare is difficult.
In the past, indigenous people who were forced to flee
similar military operations often suffered from
malnutrition, diseases, and sometimes even death. (IDMC
& NRC, 13 October 2010, p.1). Such operations have often
been accompanied by gross human rights violations, such
as the burning of homes and properties, the destruction
of gardens and other means of livelihoods, rapes, physical
144 Jakarta Post, December 2009: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/08/12/papua-better-protecting-women-against-hivaids.html.

47
abuse, torture, and extrajudicial killings. These abuses
have been perpetrated by members of the Indonesian
Military Forces (TNI) who did not make any distinctions
between members of OPM and indigenous civilians (HRW,
5 July 2007, pp. 4, 5).
During the military operations of May and June 2010,
members of Brimob (Mobile Brigade Police Force) and the
military (TNI) reportedly killed two civilians in
Tingginambut District raped a pregnant woman in
Tinggineri village (Tingginambut District), burned 12
houses and 2 churches in Gwenggu Pilia, killed all
livestock in three villages in the Tingginambut district,
and forced civilians to work for them in Pos Nalime
(Tingginambut district). While many indigenous people
had hidden in the forests, some villagers in the districts
Yambi, Agandugume and Ilaga Peak escaped to Majesty
Towogi district. Some people from Tingginambut district
have fled to the forests, while others have sought refuge
in Kuyawagiastir, Tiom and Lani Jaya district (WPAT, 30
June 2010, pp. 2, 3/WPAT, 31 July 2010, p. 2).
None of the perpetrators of the above mentioned human
rights violations have been brought to justice. The
impunity enjoyed by Indonesian security forces was
criticized by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in 2008 (UNSR, 10 March 2008, p. 15).
In 2010, the displacement of indigenous Papuans in
Merauke Regency allegedly happened in connection with
the support offered by the Government to the MIFEE
project.
In Boepe village, Kaptel district, the indigenous Malind
population had to be relocated from its original site. The
old village is now being used by Pt. Medco Papua Industri
Lestari and it has become a restricted area. Plans to build
a fabric and a wood plantation for paper production in
Boepe, followed by the relocation of the villagers, have
been in development since 2009. Although PT Medco
Papua Industri Lestari has promised to pay compensation
for the relocation of Boepe Village, the indigenous Malind
population has not yet received any payment and the new
village has not been prepared for the villagers`
resettlement. To rebuild their houses, most villagers had
to use the money they received (Piagam Penghargaan)
for having given their consent to the company’s presence
in the village. Others decided to look for shelter at
relatives’ houses in other Malind villages (Zakaria, Kleden,
Franky, January 2011, pp. 11, 67).
In May 2010, the tabloid Jubi reported that Malind people
from Boepe village were experiencing difficulties in
accessing wood and animals for hunting as a result of
the village relocation three kilometers away from its
original site. Boepe villagers also have suffered from
shortages of clean drinking water because PT Medco
Papua Industri Lestari has thrown industrial pulp
production waste into the nearby river (Tabloid Jubi, 14
May 2010, p. 1).
In addition, in 2010, displacement episodes have been
caused by tribal clashes in Mimika Regency. During the
tribal warfare of May 2010, members of the tribes from
Wamena and Paniai started assaulting villages close to
Timika to kill members of the Kei tribe. An unknown
number of indigenous people, mainly women, elders and
children, fled and sought refuge in an Indonesian military
base. The attack was carried out as an act of revenge for
the death of a Kei man (Jakarta Globe, 24 May 2010 /
Jakarta Post, 25 May 2010).
4. 2. 2 Land Rights
Land rights violations are one of the most serious problems
indigenous communities have to face as their way of life,
their livelihood, and their cultural and ancestral heritage
are closely linked to their land and natural environment.
Land rights violations mostly occur in areas where
agricultural, mining, palm oil or logging companies launch
their operations. The companies% operations and the
presence of non-Papuan labor often lead to the heavy
marginalization of affected indigenous groups.
In most Papuan ethnic groups, lands are collectively
owned and divided among inner-tribal units like clans or
sibs. The fact that companies often bargain only with the
leaders of certain clans or villages and not with all parties
involved has caused serious tensions and conflicts within
indigenous communities. Moreover, compensation
payments are often characterized by a lack of transparency
and are not divided in accordance with customary law
(Rosaryanto, Petege, January 2010, pp. 9, 10). Other
conflicts occur when, within an indigenous community,
one party accepts and another one rejects an investment.
Besides horizontal conflicts within indigenous
communities, vertical conflicts between indigenous
peoples and operating companies seem to be a serious
problem all over Papua. Such disputes normally arise
when indigenous people receive little or no compensation
for the use of their land. In Merauke regency, several such
cases have been documented (Zakaria, Kleden, Franky,
January 2011, p. 60).
In 2010, serious violations of indigenous peoples´ land
rights reportedly took place in connection with illegal
mining operations, in Paniai regency, and as a result of

48
the MIFEE project, in Merauke regency. Again in 2010,
Illegal gold mining operations at Degeuwo River in the
Bayabiru region, Bogobaida district, Paniai regency, started
in 2002 and made the area a hotspot for social tensions
and land rights violations.
The increasing presence of migrants from other
Indonesian islands and other parts of Papua have caused
serious land conflicts between mine operators and
members of the Wolani and Mee tribe who own the land
rights in this area. The mine operators in the area have
mining licenses (SIPE – Surat Izin Pertambangan Emas)
issued by the Mining Department of Nabire Regency, but
operate illegally in the Paniai regency (Rosaryanto, Petege,
January 2010, p. 3/Gobai, 10 June 2009, pp. 2 f). Several
written requests made in 2009 by the district government
and the head of Paniai regency, Naftali Yogi, to stop illegal
mining operations in the area were ignored by the mine
operators (Rosaryanto, Petege, January 2010, p. 14).
Indigenous landowners were given little compensation
by mine operators and shop owners who have set up
businesses such as billiard bars, karaoke bars and small
stores. In the case of the Bayabiru area, payments had
been handed over to the village head and tribal leader
who did not distribute the money to the landowning
clans. This fact has caused widespread resentment among
the Wolanis and led to conflicts between mining operators
and indigenous landowning clan members (Rosaryanto,
Petege, January 2010, p. 9).
The presence of Mobile Brigade Police forces (Brimob) and
military forces (TNI) protecting the illegal gold mine
operation has created serious tensions and a climate of
intimidation in the Bogobaida district. Members of the
indigenous population have been beaten and shot at
(Rosaryanto, Petege, January 2010, p. 3/John Gobai, 10
June 2009, p. 4). The military activities in the region
represent a violation of indigenous peoples’ rights
according to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’
Rights (article 30), as they cannot be justified by a relevant
public interest nor did the indigenous population ever
agree to the presence of police and military forces.
The illegal mining operations in Bogobaida district is
causing serious environmental pollution and have also
led to an increase of illegal logging in the area, due to
the fact that miners need wood to build their houses and
maintain their gold mines. During a visit to Bayubiru area,
the Secretariat for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation
(SKP KC) of Fransiskan Papua from Jayapura reported that
the indigenous landowners were only given small
compensation – between IRP 500.000 and IRP 1.000.000 –
per tree (Rosaryanto, Petege, January 2010, p. 8).
Other violations of indigenous land rights were reported
in 2010 in Merauke regency and they are related to the
implementation of the MIFEE project which the
Indonesian Central Government supports and promotes
as the ultimate solution to the growing demand for food.
The MIFEE project is supposed to maintain the national
food security for Indonesia´s increasing population
(Jakarta Post, 02 September 2010). One of the indigenous
groups in Merauke Regency which is mainly affected by
the project is the Malind Arnim tribe. The Malind Arnim
do not practice farming or gardening, but survive by
hunting, fishing, gathering, and harvesting wild sago
stocks (Zakaria, Kleden, Franky, January 2011, pp. 74 f.).
According to data from BAPINDA Merauke Regency, 36
companies made investments in the Regency, almost all
of them having received legal permission from the
government of Merauke regency (BAPINDA Kabupaten
Merauke, May 2010). Indigenous land owners, despite
being legitimate inhabitants and owners of the land, were
not informed or even taken into account in spatial
planning and land allocation, although the national law
grants every Indonesian citizen the right to be informed
about any spatial planning (UU 26 Tahun 2007, Pasal 60,
huruf a). The non-participative procedures show the
Government´s lack of commitment towards the
indigenous population in the regency and have laid the
foundation for land rights violations committed by several
companies in 2009 and 2010 (Zakaria, Kleden, Franky,
January 2011, pp. 14 f).
Indigenous land rights violation cases in Merauke have
been reported in the village of Zenegi, Kaliki and Boepe.
In all cases, subsidiary companies of the Medco group,
namely PT Selaras Inti Semesta and PT Medco Papua
Industri Lestari, were involved.
In Kaliki village, Kurik district, PT. Selaras Inti Semesta
contacted the representatives of the four local clans and
arranged a few meetings in 2008. During a meeting on 3
March the company promised to build houses and a
school, pay education fees for their children, build a new
road to the village and give some motorbikes to the
villagers. On 29 October 2008, the clan leaders signed a
contract agreeing that the company would build an
industrial wood plantation (Hutan Tanaman Industri) in
the Kaliki area (JPIC GKI, 03 March 2011, p. 1). For the
lease, which was signed in October 2009, the company
only bargained with the representative of one clan. This
contract mentions neither the size of the leased land nor
the compensation payment. According to the lease, the
compensation payment is set by the company. The
contract only makes reference to compensation between
IRP 1.500 to 2.000 per cubic meter for the cut trees

49
(Perjanjian Pengelolaan Lahan No: 46/PPL/SIS/ X/2009, 06
October 2009, p. 4).
Besides the written six year lease, PT. Selaras Inti Semesta
made an oral agreement with the clan representative to
use 20 hectares for an Acacia plantation and provide IRP
20.000.000 and several motorcycles as compensation.
Contrary to the oral agreement, the company extended
their plantation to an estimated size of 100 hectares in
2010. The presence of PT Selaras Inti Semesta caused
conflicts and jealousy among the villagers. PT Cenderawasih
Jaya Mandiri and PT Karya Bumi Papua, both subsidiary
companies of the Rajawali Group, have already received
operating licenses for the Kurik district in 2010 and plan
to build a sugarcane plantation and a sugar factory in the
Kaliki area (Nerotouw, 07 December 2010, pp. 1 f).
In 2010, a similar case was reported in Zenegi village
where PT Selaras Inti Semesta gave IRP 300.000.000 to
the head of Zenegi village and to one indigenous leader.
The company called the money an award (Piagam
Penghargaan) for the indigenous villagers of Zenegi
village, because they had agreed that the company could
launch its operations in the area around the village. This
act seems to be part of the company´s common strategy
to get in contact with the people and convince them to
accept the companies contractual conditions. Later, PT
Selaras Inti Semesta mentioned the given award in the
MoU as compensation payment for the land usage, which
caused not only tensions between the company and the
indigenous population in Zenegi, but also horizontal
conflicts as PT. Selaras Inti Semesta only bargained with
one of the six clans holding land rights in Zenegi (Zakaria,
Kleden, Franky, January 2011, pp. 57 f.).
As in the case of Kaliki Village, PT Selaras Inti Semesta has
not adhered to the contractual arrangements. According
to the MoU, logging operations should not be conducted
within 2 km of hunting grounds, sacred sites and sago
stocks. Villagers from Zenegi complained that the
company carried out their logging operations only 50
meters away from protected areas. Other agreements,
like the construction of a school, a small clinic and a new
church in Zenegi village, have not yet been realized
(Zakaria, Kleden, Franky, January 2011, pp. 65 f.).
A worse case of fraud has been reported in Boepe village
where PT. Medco Papua Industri Lestari has only paid IRP
100.000.000 compensation for 1000 hectares of land to
the villagers (IRP 10 per square meter). Similar to the
episode in Zenegi Village, the company gave money and
material goods as an award to the people in order to
convince them to sign a MoU. Later on, the money and
material were mentioned as compensation payments in
the written MoU. The document also mentions the
companies right to obtain the land rights from the
authorized government institution in charge. This makes
the company the legal owner of the land and deprives
the indigenous Malind of Boepe from the possibility of
laying claim to their ancestral lands (Zakaria, Kleden,
Franky, January 2011, p. 63).
Such cases are particularly common in Merauke Regency,
where the government issued permits for companies
without any Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the
affected indigenous population, constituting a clear
violation of articles 8/2 (b, c, d), 10, 11 (2), 18 of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The local
government in Merauke failed to take effective measures
to discipline the companies or protect the affected
indigenous people’s rights. It seems more concerned
about creating an investment-friendly environment for
companies than making commitments to the indigenous
population. Similar observations were made by USAID in
2009, when it expressed its concern over the
government´s investment policy and its apparent
disregard for customary land ownership rights (USAID,
February 2009, p. 107).
4. 2. 3 Indigenous Cultural Rights
Violations of indigenous cultural rights are closely related
to violations of land rights. Most indigenous Papuans
consider their land as their “Mother”, land of their
ancestors, or origin. This implies that the land does not
have just a value related to livelihood for them, but it also
has a deep sacred meaning. The forced severance of the
close bond that exists between indigenous peoples and
their lands is detrimental to their livelihood, culture and
traditions of indigenous Papuans.
In 2010, various companies’ operations had a deep impact
on the Papuan environment. The affected indigenous
communities were hardly able to practice their traditional
methods of production or gain access to sacred places.
This constitutes a violation of several articles of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (articles
3, 8 (b), 12/1, 12/2). Such violations of cultural rights
happened, for example, in Merauke regency, particularly
in Zenegi and Boepe village. A majority of the affected
indigenous populations belong to the Malind Arnim
whose economy is based on hunting, fishing and the
harvesting of wild sago stocks. The population of the
Boepe village reported difficulties finding firewood and
water, and hunting. Residents of Zenegi village complained
that logging operations by PT. Selaras Inti Semesta took
place close to hunting grounds, sacred sites and sago
stocks and therefore constitute a threat to the people´s
livelihood and ancestral traditions (Tabloid Jubi, 15 May
2010/Zakaria, Kleden, Franky, January 2011, pp. 65 f.).

50
The ongoing influx of Indonesian migrants opening
businesses in remote areas close to indigenous peoples´
settlements leads to an increase of alcohol consumption,
gambling and prostitution and creates a deep impact on
indigenous societies. The situation in Degeuwo, Paniai
regency, in 2010 is one example. The presence of illegal
mining sites launched by migrants who are opening
shops, billiard and karaoke bars have a deep impact on
the indigenous people’s culture in the area. The
indigenous Wolani in Degeuwo have come into contact
with prostitution, gambling and alcohol, including children
under the age of eighteen. Many Wolani, have started to
look for gold instead of cultivating their gardens which
is traditionally the major economic activity in the Wolani
culture.
Most indigenous people are also highly attracted by the
goods sold in the newly established shops. According to
a report from SKP KC Fransiskan Papua, some people are
already getting used to buying expensive food in the
shops rather than cooking traditional food. This situation
slowly creates a dependency on money and gold among
local indigenous Wolani (Rosaryanto, Petege, January 2010,
pp. 13 f).
Since most of the indigenous people’s land has already
been sold to mine operators, the local Wolani face an
uncertain future. The environment in the area has also
been highly degraded. The illegal logging, the erosion
resulting from the gold exploitation, and the heavy
pollution of the drinking water caused by the use of
mercury and other chemicals, make it unlikely that
indigenous people in the area will be able to carry on
gardening, gathering, and hunting in the future (Gobai,
10 June 2009, p. 3).
4. 2. 4 Indonesian Influx
In 2010, the Provincial Governments of Papua and West
Papua did not take any legal steps to control the
increasing migration flux of Indonesians attracted by
Papua’s growing business opportunities.
According to the 2010 census, 2.85 million people live in
Papua Province, and the smaller West Papua Province has
a population of 0.76 million people. (Hasil Sensus
Penduduk 2010 Provinsi Papua, August 2010, p. 7/Hasil
Sensus Penduduk 2010 Papua Barat, August 2010, p. 1).
Comparing the data from the 2000 census, when the two
provinces were not yet divided, the population has
increased by 65 %. This cannot be simply explained by a
high birth rate. The rapid growth of the population is in
fact the result of an uncontrolled migration flux from
other parts of Indonesia (Flor, November 2010, p. 3). So
far, the provincial governments have not yet taken any
legal measures to control the migration, with the result
that indigenous Papuans are becoming a minority on their
own island.
The latest 2010 census does not contain disaggregated
data about the composition of the population. Therefore
it is difficult to determine the exact ratio of Papuans to
non-Papuans.
Based on historical growth rates, members of the Center
for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney
concluded that Papuans have already become a minority
with a population ratio of 48.73 % Papuan to 51.27 % non-
Papuan in 2010.145
If Papuans have already become a minority in the urban
regions, they still constitute the majority in the remote
areas which are less attractive to non-Papuans because
they lack access to essential services such as health care,
education and other infrastructure (Elmslie, September
2010, pp. 4 ff.).
The ongoing uncontrolled migration to Papua is leading
to competition for land and severe economic gaps
between migrants and indigenous Papuans as businesses
and commercial trade are mostly in the hands of non-
Papuans. This situation is generating increasing tensions
between both groups. In 2010, several fatal attacks
perpetrated by Papuans against Indonesian migrants have
been documented (IRIN, 13 August 2010/ICG, 16 June
2008, p. 1).
The increasing migration from other parts of Indonesia
is reinforced by the huge development projects requiring
specialized labour, which is lacking in Papua. For example,
most indigenous Papuans do not have experience in
working on rice fields or cash crop plantations. In the
Merauke regency, the population does not satisfy the
labour requirements of the MIFEE project and this will
likely push companies to seek for workers in Java,
Sulawesi, and other overpopulated islands in Indonesia.
This situation is expected to lead to serious conflicts
between indigenous peoples and migrants who will
compete for land and resources. According to the Central
145 According to the census in 1971, indigenous Papuan were the dominant population with a majority of 96,09 %. The scientists estimated
that Papuan people will become a minority with only 28,99 % in 2020, with the assumption that both populations, Papuans and
non-Papuans, are growing according to the historic growth rate.

51
Government, the population in Merauke might grow from
175.000 to 800.000 (Jakarta Globe, 5 March 2010). As a
consequence, the Malind Arnim people, who have already
become a marginalized minority during the Soeharto era,
will be further marginalized by the realization of the
MIFEE project (Zakaria, Kleden, Franky, January 2011, p.
80 f, see also Klute, November 2010, p. 19).
Although transmigration programs supported by the
central government were stopped after the Suharto era,
local governments are still pushing transmigration instead
of taking legal measures to control it effectively. On 4
March 2010, demonstrations took place in the city of
Sorong, West Papua , where indigenous Papuans protested
against an agreement between the Governors of West
Papua and West Java stating that 7.000 people from West
Java should be relocated to the West Papua Province. The
demonstrators criticized the Provincial Government of
West Papua which declared its willingness to prepare
7.000 houses for the migrants, but showed little
commitment towards indigenous Papuans living in poor
conditions (JPNN, 05 March 2010). In the past, the
establishment of settlements for migrants, planned and
developed by the government, often resulted in
displacement of indigenous Papuans.
Sources:
p BAPINDA Kabupaten Merauke, May 2010, Perusahaan
yang berinvestasi di Kabupaten Merauke
p Braithwaite, John/Valerie Braithwaite/Michael
Cooksen/Leah Dunn, March 2010, Anomie and
Violence – Non-truth and reconciliation in Indonesia
peace building
p Elmslie, Jim, September, 2010, CPACS Working Paper
No. 11/1, West Papuan Demographic Transition and
the 2010 Indonesian Census: “Slow Motion Genicide”
or not?, University of Sidney
p Gobai, John, 10 June 2009, Official letter from Dewan
Adat Daerah Paniyai: Kerjasama Pengusaha dan
Aparat Keamanan dalam Illegal Mining yang
berdampak pada Kerusakan Lingkungan dan Moral
Masyarakat Papua di Paniai, Enarotali
p Flor, Alexander, November 2010, Ein Schiff wird
kommen, Deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit für
deutsche Unternehmen, pp. 3 –7, in: Suara 3/2010,
Jahrgang 19
p Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010 Provinsi Papua, Agregat
Data per Kabupaten/Kota, August 2010, Badan Pusat
Statistik Provinsi Papua
p Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010 Papua Barat (Angka
Sementara), August 2010, Berita Resmi Statitstik,
Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Papua Barat
p Human Rights Watch (HRW), 5 July 2007, Indonesia:
Out of sight – Endemic abuse and impunity in
Papua´s Central Highlands.
p Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), 13
August 2010, “Economic marginalization fuelling
conflict in Papua”
p International Crisis Group (ICG), 19 July 2007,
Indonesian Papua: A Local perspective on the Conflict
p International Crisis Group (ICG), 16 June 2008,
Indonesia: Communal tensions in Papua
p Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) &
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), 13 October 2010,
Indonesia/Papua: Papuans displaced by military
operations in the central highland remain unassisted
p JPIC GKI, 03 March 2011, Laporan: Kaliki Persoalan Hak
dan Tanah
p Jakarta Globe, 5 March 2010, “Activists Say Papua
Food Estate ‘Not the Answer’ ”
p Jakarta Globe, 24 May 2010, “Villagers Flee Deadly
Papua Tribal Clash”
p Jakarta Post, 25 May 2010, “Rival Communities clash
in Timika”
p Jakarta Post, 2 September 2010, “No conversion of
virgin forest to food estate in Merauke: Govt”
People from Marind Arnim Tribe in the Merauke area during a traditional ceremony in Kaliki village.

52
p Jawa Pos National Network (JPNN), 5 March 2010,
“Transmigran Jawa ditolak”, e-document:
http://www.jpnn.com/index.php?mib=berita.
detail&id=59004
p Jiwan, Norman, 16 April 2011, “MIFEE is slow motion
of genocide”, e-document: http://www.normanjiwan.
blogspot.com/2011/04/mifee-is-slow-motion-of-
genocide.html
p Klute, Marianne, November 2010, Agroindustrie in
Papua, pp. 15–19, in: Suara 3/2010, Jahrgang 19
p Nerotouw, Yohanis, 7 December 2010, Laporan
Keadaan Jemaat GKI Syalom Kaliki (Masyarakat
Kampung Kaliki)
p Perjanjian Pengelolaan Lahan tentang Pengelolahan
Lahan Hak Ulayat untuk Pembangunan Lahan No:
46/PPL/SIS/X/2009, 06 October 2009
p Rosaryanto, Edy / Eli Petege, January 2010, SKP KC
Fransiskan Papua: Dampak hadirnya Pertambangan
bagi Masyarakat di Baya Biru – Degeuwo/Kemabu,
Kabupaten Paniai, Jayapura (Potret Pertambangan
Emas di Papua)
p Tabloid Jubi, 14 May 2010, Warga Boepe hadapi
ancaman kerusakan lingkungan, e-document: http://
www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/
seputar-tanah-papua/7067-warga-boepe-hadapi-
ancaman-kerusakan-lingkungan.html
p United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, 10 March 2008, Mission to Indonesia
p US Agency for International Development (USAID), 20
February 2009, Papua assessment USAID/ Indonesia
(November 2008–January 2009)
p West Papua Netzwerk, Dezember 2009, West Papua
Rundbrief 48, Goldfunde in Degeuwo/Papua,
Wuppertal
p West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT), 30 June 2010,
West Papua Report 73 – June 2010, New Bloodshed in
Papuan Central Highlands
p West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT), 31 July 2010,
West Papua Report 74 – July 2010, Security Force
Operations in Puncak Jaya Escalate
p Zakaria, R. Yando/Emilianus Ola Kleden/Y.L. Franky,
January 2011, MIFEE: Tak Terjangkau Angan Malind,
Jakarta
A mother and her child have to walk a long distance to
collect clean water due to the environmental damage

53
4. 3 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Violations
by Freeport Indonesia
On 7 April 1967, when a contract between Freeport
Indonesia Incorporated (now Freeport Indonesia Company)
and the Government of Indonesia was signed, the
occupation and exploitation of the Amugme indigenous
people’s land started. The contract was renewed for 30
years on 30 December 1991.
The mining process has caused severe environmental
damages, the loss of hunting areas and sources of food,
and the contamination of Wanagon Lake. Such
exploitation and destruction has angered local people,
especially those who use the water of Lake Wanagon daily,
both as a source of livelihood and as sacred place.
Freeport waited more than 30 years to respond to the
suffering of the indigenous people caused by mining. On
July 13th 2000, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
was signed by Freeport Indonesia Company, The Amungme
Indigenous People Institution LEMASA (Lembaga
Masyarakat Adat Suku Amungme), and The Kamoro
Indigenous People Institution LEMASKO (Lembaga
Musyawarah Adar Suku Kamoro). The MoU states that
Freeport Indonesia Company “will continue to
acknowledge and respect the adat and land (”ulayat”)
rights of the Amungme dan Kamoro and will strive to
finalize the agreement for voluntary additional ”recognisi”
(Trust Fund), which Trust Fund, in whole or in part, it is
contemplated can be used to purchase shares of stock in
Freeport- McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. thereby assuring
an ongoing interest in and ownership of the mining
operation by the Amungme dan Kamoro.)”
However, the MoU has not been implemented yet by
Freeport Indonesia. Consequently, several representatives
from three villages affected (Tsinga, Banti (Waa), and
Arwanop) approached the Indonesian Human Rights
Committee for Social Justice (IHCS) to ask for assistance.
Soon after the IHCS conducted a field trip to the Freeport
operational area, in Timika Papua and met with several
stakeholders. The designation of IHCS as advocate for the
three villages represented the first step toward the goal
of opening a dialogue with the Freeport Indonesia
Company.
Two meetings were arranged on 11 and 15 September
2008, but little progress was made, due to the fact that
Freeport Indonesia Company appeared unwilling to
address the matter. The IHCS with representatives from
the three villages reported the matter to the Indonesian
National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM)
and asked it to mediate in the case.

54
Komnas HAM invited the parties several times to engage
in a dialogue. While the leaders of the Amugme and
Komoro146 indigenous people attended, no one from
Freeport Indonesia Company came. They sent a letter
asking to postpone the meeting to 15 November 2010.
The commissioner ordered Freeport Indonesia Company
to attend the second meeting on 19 October 2010. On
the appointed day, Freeport Indonesia Company sent one
member of its legal staff and one member of its
government relations staff. The Papuan leaders refused
to talk to them because they believed that their rank did
not qualify them to talk to the community leaders and
to take significant decisions. Komnas HAM later arranged
another mediation date on 27 October, but again, Freeport
Indonesia Company failed to attend the appointment.
Several high level officers of Freeport Indonesia Company
eventually attended another mediation date on 22
November. The meeting then continued on 10 March
2011.
It is worth noting that in the middle of the mediation
process, Titus Natkime, a former staff member of Freeport
146 In the meeting, IHCS received power of attorney from the Kamoros.
147 This Section is fully based on the report ‘Securitization in Papua – The Implication of Security Approach towards Human Rights Conditions
in Papua’ by Imparsial. Authors (Imparsial Team): Al Araf, Anton Aliabbas, Ardi Manto, Bhatara Ibnu Reza, Cahyadi Satriya, Ghufron
Mabruri, Jaky Nurhasya, Junaidi Simun, Muchamad Ali Safa’at, Poengky Indarti.
and also a member of the Amungmes, suddenly registered
a civil suit in Southern Jakarta district court against
Freeport regarding his ancestral land. In the suit, he
claimed to be representative of all the Amungme.
There were two major discrepancies in this process. Firstly,
Titus Natkime was working with Freeport. In fact, in the
first meeting between the indigenous people and
Freeport, Titus acted as the representative of Freeport.
Secondly, Titus claimed to be the representative of the
Amungmes though he never declared this to the
Amungme tribe. The Amungmes’ land, which occupies
the Grasberg Mountain is divided into several different
areas that are each managed by different families such
as the Bugaleng, Beanal, Natkime, Magal, Mamang,
Ketenangame, Onawame, Jamang, Eanam, Omabak,
Jangkup, and Abugau.
For this reason, the IHCS and the Amungmes considered
Titus’ action an effort to interfere in the mediation
process which was conducted by the Indonesian National
Commission for Human Rights.
Section 5 – Security Sector and Human Rights in Papua
The Indonesian public has called for security sector
reforms since the Soeharto downfall in 1998. The report
“Securitization in Papua – The Implication of Security
Approach towards Human Rights Conditions in Papua” by
Imparsial
147
clarifies the link between the security reform
adopted in Papua and its impacts on the human rights
situation in the province. It shows that, in Papua, the
Indonesian Army applies a security approach that leads
to a wide range of human rights violations such as
intimidation, murder, terror, torture, rape and violence.
Moreover, the implementation of the Special Autonomy
Law in 2001 has yet to significantly alter the existing
security approach.
5. 1 Background
Since Papua was integrated into the administration of the
Government of Indonesia (1963) and the Act of Free
Choice (1969), the Government has adopted a security/
military approach for the maintenance of the State’s
sovereignty. The aim of this policy is to completely
eradicate separatist movements which are perceived as
a threat against the State’s security and sovereignty.
This military approach is implemented by the Government
when dealing with civil society movements that are
critical of to the government or Papuan groups that are
against the integration of the Papua Province in Indonesia.
As peace is not the result of violence, the security and
military approach does not result in any conflict
resolution. On the contrary, it fuels and maintains the
existing conflicts and perpetuates the substantial human
costs associated with widespread violations of human
rights in Papua.
The presence of security personnel is very much evident
in the daily life of Papuans. Military and Police forces from
outside Papua continue to be deployed at an increasing
rate, both in terms of numbers and frequency of tours of
duty. It remains difficult, however, to find out the actual

55
148 Imparsial estimates that there are 14.842 military personnel deployed in the region.
149 The 15 cases documented since 1998 include intimidation, arrest, assault, torture and murder.
number of troops deployed since there is no policy
transparency.
148
Besides this, there is also an increase of
military and security activities ranging from operations
aimed at eradicating groups deemed separatists to groups
conducting basic community and social work. For the
locations and numbers of military personnel in Papua see
the map on p. 57, showing Indonesian military (TNI)
commands, bases and deployed units in West Papua.
5. 2 Implications of the presence of the Army
on the Human Rights Conditions in Papua
Clearly, the presence of the military does not improve the
security of the people in Papua. The label of “separatists”
given to people who oppose the government often leads
to acts of violence. There are many examples of human
rights violations before, during, and after the New Order.
Below, two cases from 2010 mentioned in the Imparsial
report are described.
pThe case of an arbitrary search, based on the
testimony of Workwana-Arso people in Keerom district.
On November 26th, 2010, the Airborne Infantry Batallion
Task Force of the Army Strategic Reserve Command
came with two military trucks and dressed in combat
uniforms to raid and search the house of any
individuals suspected of being related to Lambert
Pekikir, a member of the Free Papua Movement.
Lambert was believed to be already in Papua New
Guinea at that time. This search left the family in a
tremendous state of fear. This was not the first arbitrary
house search. In September 2010, other troops had
conducted a similar operation, searching the houses and
gardens of the people suspected to be related to
Lambert.
pThe case of the torture videos in Tingginambut,
Puncak Jaya. This case is described in more detail in
Chapter 2. 2. 1 and 2. 2. 2 of this report. In 2010, two
videos appeared on the Internet showing the practice of
torture by Indonesian military against members of the
local community. The first video records violence
perpetrated in March 2010, in the Gurage village. The
second one shows the interrogations of OPM leaders
conducted by military personnel in the same area, in
May 2010. The legal proceeding that followed
demonstrates that human rights violations committed
by the military in Papua are not seriously addressed.
pGender based violence. Since the area is continuously
engulfed by conflicts, Papuan women face serious
gender based violence, especially because the central
government continues to use such a heavy-handed
military approach to security. Many women are victims
of rape or other forms of assault, leaving them with
deep traumas. For instance, on September 11th 2010, 5
border security troops from Infantry Batallion 527/BY
raped women in Yuruf (Keerom River). Later in
September, the security personnel divulged a memo
requiring signatures from local villagers and religious
leaders that they would not press charges against the
military personnel involved in the rape case.
pHuman rights defenders. In Papua, the work of
human rights defenders is seriously hampered by the
intimidation and violence of the military personnel.149
Victims include NGO activitsts, students, journalists,
religious leaders, and community leaders. Many face
threats through SMS or phone calls, become targets of
wiretappings and surveillance, or victims of direct
violence. Others face violence, threats of being arrested
or detained, assaults and torture during their detention,
disruption to meetings, limitations of freedom of
expression and assembly, attacks on their property,
death threats and even murders.
The justification given is often related to crimes,
provocations, and acts of treason allegedly committed by
the human rights defenders against the state. In
particular, separatism is cited as a reason for targeting
these individuals. The conclusion of the Special Rapporteur
on Human Rights Defenders – Ms. Hina Jilani – after her
visit to Papua in 2007 is still relevant: “Despite visible
progress in the country’s democratic development, human
rights defenders continue to experience serious
constraints in conducting their activities for the protection
of human rights. Such constraints are imputable to the
continuing activities of the police, the military and other
security and intelligence agencies as well as religious
fundamentalist groups that are aimed at harassing and
intimidating defenders or restricting their access to
victims and to sites of human rights violations”.

56
Other human rights and security issues in which the
military is said to be involved are:
pShootings around PT Freeport;
pIllegal logging;
p Land conflicts, particularly the involvement of the
military in the arrest of local people and forced
relinquishing of indigenous land;
pDistribution of illegal alcohol;
pThe confiscation of traditional instruments of rituals.
5. 3 Security (military) Policies, Politics, and
Challenges in Enforcing Human Rights
“The military is Indonesia, Indonesia is the military” is the
common perception of the Papuans. The bitter history of
years of violence and human rights violations naturally
resulted in tension and conflicts. To realize the ‘Papua land
of peace’ image one needs a political approach instead of
the enforced security approach.
The current security policies implemented in Papua
seriously challenge any improvement in the human rights
situation. Several reasons for the worsening human rights
situation in relation to militarization can be identified as
follows.
pA. The primacy of national security over individual
security in government policy:
p Lack of trust between Jakarta and Papua. The
relationship between Jakarta and Papua is based
on suspicion and a lack of trust. The central
government is suspicious of every move made by
Papuan separatist groups and employs the
“separatist stereotype” against Papuans in
general. From the Papuan point of view, Jakarta
is seen as manipulative and deceitful.
p Widespread prejudice related to separatism as a
potential source of violence. Military personnel
at all levels bear such prejudice and are
therefore prone to subject people to abuse and
ill-treat people.
pB. The politics of Papuan security policy:
p Military domination and repression. There is an
overconcentration of military personnel in Papua
with approximately 15.000 soldiers in the region.
Their way of operating is based on domination
and manipulation.
p Legitimacy and justification of the roles of the
military. Voices of dissidents and dissatisfaction
remain strong, and one of them is the Free
Papua Movement (OPM). Although the
movement is seen to be lacking the strength to
pose a serious threat to the unity of Indonesia,
Jakarta considers them an important justification
for the security policies implemented in Papua.
By repeatedly emphasizing the OPM threat,
Jakarta accumulates public support for its policy.
The abovementioned securitization in Papua generates
increasing violence and human rights violations. The
victims of human rights abuses committed by the military
personnel in Papua are from various backgrounds, ranging
from political activists, to journalists, to ordinary people.
Those who are investigating human rights cases or
critically questioning the human rights situation are often
labeled as being part of the separatist movement. This
influences the expansion of military surveillance.
5. 4 Conclusion and Recommendations
The pattern of securitization in Papua is related to the
inadequate efforts at security reform, and the low
professionalism of the military personnel. As a result,
human rights conditions in Papua remain at best
unchanged with limitations of freedom of expression,
limitations of freedom of movement, intimidations,
arrests, torture, sexual violence, confiscations of goods
and belongings, and arbitrary killings.
Not many cases have been brought to justice so the
culture of impunity remains. The security policy
implemented in Papua makes the existing conflicts more
complex and difficult to handle.
In the future, to improve security and human rights
enforcement in Papua, radical political and policy changes
are needed. According to the Imparsial report, the
conflicts can only be solved and the respect for human
rights can only be achieved if the central government will
take into consideration the following points:
p 1. Accelerating security sector reform, particularly
military reform;
p 2. De-securitization and reduction of military
personnel;
p 3. Adoption of peaceful conflict resolution, including
a Jakarta-Papua dialogue and evaluation of the
implementation of the Special Autonomy Law;
p 4. Eradication of impunity for past human rights
violations;
p5. Strengthening civil authority and public scrutiny.

57
Figure 1: Indonesian military (TNI) commands, bases and deployed units in West Papua150
Section 6 – Recommendations
The present 2010/2011 Human Rights Report on Papua
indicates in no uncertain terms that an enormous effort
must be exerted to transform the current human rights
situation in Indonesia and ensure the full enjoyment of
human rights of the Papuans. The following paragraphs
contain the recommendations to the Government of
Indonesia and its institutions, to the International
Community and to the European Union and its member
states.
6. 1 To the Government of Indonesia and
its Institutions
In light of the findings of this report, the Government of
Indonesia is recommended to adapt its institutional
infrastructure in accordance with existing international
standards. The adaption and implementation of these
measures will have a significant impact on the state of
human rights in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and
West Papua.
In particular, the Government of Indonesia should ratify:
pRome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
p Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture,
Cruel, Inhuman and Other Degrading Treatment;
p Optional Protocols 1 and 2 to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
p Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
p Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on involvement of children in armed conflict;
p Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on the Sale of Children, child prostitution
and child pornography;
p International Convention on the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
150 Matthew N. Davies, &TNI and POLRI Forces in West Papua: Restructuring and Reasserting Sovereignty% in Austral Special Report
06–2.85, p. 7, 17 August 2006, Nautilius Institute for Security and Sustainability

58
The Government of Indonesia should extend a standing
invitation to all UN Special Procedures, to enhance its
engagement with the Special Procedures mechanism and
to benefit from their recommendations, in order to adapt
the national legislation to the international human rights
standards, and in particular the recommendations by the
UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and on the
protection of human rights while countering terrorism.
The UN Special Rapporteurs should be allowed to have
unlimited access to the Indonesian provinces of Papua
and West Papua and be able to meet with representatives
of civil society without restrictions.
In relation to the institutional framework, the government
of Indonesia should take concrete measures to:
p guarantee the independence of the judiciary and
prevent attempts of interference in judicial affairs by
government officials;
p harmonise local laws with national and international
standards and strengthen national and regional
human rights institutions;
p ensure the effective civilian oversight of the military
through the establishment of a civilian criminal
court jurisdiction over members of the military
responsible for crimes perpetrated against civilians;
p improve the procedures for civilians to complain
against military and police personnel, and amend the
Law of Criminal Procedures to limit the ability of the
security forces to delay or discontinue legal
proceedings against its members;
p ensure the judicial oversight of Section 31 of Law
15/2003 in order to prevent violations of the freedom
of expression and amend Law 15/2003 to narrow the
definition of terrorism in accordance with
international standards and thus prevent abusive
interpretations of the law and criminalisation of
legitimate and peaceful activities and opinions;
p eliminate provisions in Section 26 of Law 15/2003
which allow uncorroborated intelligence to be used
as legal evidence for investigation and detention;
p cease the arbitrary labelling of individuals as
‘terrorists’ and arbitrary arrests, e. g. family members
of those suspected of terrorist activity;
p introduce effective legislation that establishes a
transparent and accountable oversight of the
intelligence agencies, and ensure that the use of
evidence obtained through coercion or torture is
absolutely prohibited in law and in practice.
The Government of Indonesia needs to take concrete
measures to combat impunity, especially for the human
rights violations in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and
West Papua.
The Government of Indonesia should:
p devote adequate attention, resources, and political
will to properly investigate, prosecute and punish
perpetrators, in particular, in cases pending in court;
p conduct effective, transparent, independent, and
impartial investigation into allegations of human
rights abuses, especially those allegedly committed
by state security forces;
p conduct prompt and effective investigations into
allegations and cases of torture and provide
adequate remedies to victims;
pinclude the crime of torture in the Criminal Code.
In order to establish a culture of the rule of law, there is
a need to raise awareness and enhance the competence,
capacity, and professionalism of the state officials.
The Government of Indonesia should:
p provide training to institutional personnel such as
judges, prosecutors, lawyers, law enforcement
officials (such as military, police, and intelligence
agents) and ensure the effectiveness of the training
through monitoring and evaluation;
p engage further in dialogues at the regional and
international levels, and share best practices;
p support education and training dealing with women
and children’s issues, e. g. related to trafficking in
persons;
p provide reliable and substantiated statistical
information and data on fundamental elements of
social life in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and
West Papua, such as demography, governance and
administration, education, health, the conditions of
employment, and income generation.
The human rights situation in the Indonesian provinces
of Papua and West Papua requires special attention as it
is a conflict area. There are many aspects to be considered
that are beyond this report’s remit.
Nevertheless, the Government of Indonesia should:
p recognise fundamental rights such as freedom of
expression and opinion, peaceful assembly, and
self-determination of the peoples in accordance with
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (Indonesia voted in favour in 2007), and
instruct employees of the government and
administration to fully respect, protect and adhere to
those rights;
p cease the intimidation, harassment and physical
violence against human rights defenders, journalists,
and religious leaders in Papua;

59
p permit unrestricted access to Papua for international
humanitarian and human rights organisations,
international journalists, and parliamentarians;
p conduct prompt and effective investigations into all
cases of human rights violations against Papuans, in
particular, allegations of torture and extrajudicial
killings reportedly perpetrated by members of the
military and identify and prosecute those responsible
and provide adequate remedies to the victims;
p establish a Human Rights Court and a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in Papua, as stipulated in
Article 45 of the Law No. 21/2001 on Special
Autonomy for Papua;
p guarantee that the Attorney General’s Office will
take up its responsibility to further investigate gross
human rights violations in Papua, in particular, the
Wasior case of 2001/2002 and the Wamena Case of
2003 which were submitted to the Attorney
General’s Office by the National Human Rights
Commission (Komnas HAM) in 2004;
p reduce the number of military forces in Papua and
ensure the adherence to human rights principles of
Indonesian security forces;
p provide access to detention facilities in Papua for
human rights monitoring institutions including the
International Committee of the Red Cross;
p recognize, respect, and protect the rights of
indigenous people, in particular indigenous land
rights and the rights over indigenous natural
resources;
p ensure access to basic healthcare, education, and
economic opportunity for the indigenous people of
Papua.
Furthermore, the Faith-based Network on West Papua
(FBN) would like to encourage the Government of
Indonesian to engage in an open dialogue with the
indigenous people of Papua concerning these unresolved
issues.
6. 2 To the International Community
The international community must support the
Government of Indonesia and at the same time take into
consideration the delicate balance between support and
interference.
The International Community, therefore, should:
p assist the Government of Indonesia in its
commitment to fulfill its international human rights
obligations;
pstrengthen the capacity of civil society actors;
pc ooperate and facilitate the UN Special Procedure
mandate holders in their work in Papua as well as
cooperate and facilitate with the national NGOs,
churches, and other stakeholders.
6. 3 To the European Union and its Members
The European Union and its members should:
p raise the problem of human rights violations in the
Indonesian Provinces of Papua and West Papua
within the on-going Human Rights Dialogue
between the European Union and the Government
of Indonesia, with particular focus on impunity;
p support the Government of Indonesia in fulfilling its
international obligations and implementing the
recommendations issued by the relevant UN bodies
and procedures;
p strengthen the capacity of government officials to
conduct prompt and effective investigations on
human rights violations and thereby prosecute and
punish the culprits;
p tailor the economic and military assistance to
Indonesia’s specific needs with the aim of improving
the human rights situation in Papua, and provide for
an effective control mechanism for cases of non-
compliance (in particular in relation to the training
of Indonesian military and police).
Far from being exhaustive, this is a list of recommendations
which addresses the human rights situation in the
Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua which
urgently require resolution.
Children from Papua land of Peace

60
Franciscans International Offices
Faith Based Network on West Papua
FBN Secretariat
Rudolfstrasse 137
42285 Wuppertal
GERMANY
T: +49 2 02 89 00 41 70
fbn_papua@vemission.org
Asian Human Rights Commission
Unit 701A, Westley Square
48 Hoi Yuen Road
Kwun Tong, KLN
Hong Kong, CHINA
T: +8 52 26 98 63 39
www.humanrights.asia
FI Geneva
37-39 rue de Vermont
P. O. Box 104
CH-1211 Geneva 20
SWITZERLAND
T +41 22 7 79 40 10
geneva@fi op.org
FI New York
246 E. 46th St. #1F
New York, NY 10017-2937
USA
T +1 2 12 4 90 46 24
newyork@fi op.org
FI Bangkok
6th Floor, 2
Soi Thong Lor 25
Sukhumvit 55 Road
Bangkok 10110 THAILAND
T +66 27 12 79 76
bangkok@fi op.org