INDONESIA: Police in Medan protect torturers by failing to respond adequately to a torture complaint

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received the information regarding a torture case took place in Medan, North Sumatra. The victim was blindfolded by the police and taken to an unidentified place where he was severely beaten with a wood block on his head and back. The victim’s mother submitted complaints in February this year to police, asking for an investigation but the authorities have not responded to her complaints.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to the information obtained by Medan Legal Aid Institute (LBH Medan), Rokki Hutapea was arrested by around 6-7 officers, who could not be identified by names and ranks, from Medan District Police on 30 January 2012. The police did not produce a warrant at the time of the arrest but the detention warrant shown later reveals that Rokki was arrested for his involvement in an aggravated theft case.

The police officers tied Rokki’s hands behind his back, blindfolded him with double tapes and forced him to get into a car. Inside the car, Rokki was beaten by the officers until they reached the house of Aseng, another person also allegedly involved in the theft but was later released without any clear justification. Rokki and Aseng were later taken to a remote place that cannot be identified, as of today. The police officers took Rokki out of the car and forced him to sit on the ground. As he was sitting, the police started beating him on his back, arms and head using a wood block. As a result of the beating Rokki’s head was injured. The officers later took the blindfold off and poured brake fluid over his head. The police told Rokki that the brake fluid will stop the bleeding.

Despite the fact that Rokki was severely injured, the police did not take him directly to the hospital but to Medan District Police. It is only after Rokki begged the police that he was finally taken to the hospital. At the hospital, the police asked Rokki not to tell the doctors on what actually had happened but that the injuries he suffered was a result of he was being in a fight or because he fell over. It is reported that Rokki had 12 stitches outside and 4 others inside the head. Other parts of body, including the back, were bruised.

Rokki’s mother later decided to submit complaints concerning the torture suffered by her son at the hands of the police. She first filed the complaint to the Criminal Division of the North Sumatra Regional Police on 8 February 2012, with the hope that they would hold a criminal investigation on the abuse happened to her son. Her complaint was received by the police, as confirmed by a complaint receipt registered as STTLP/140/II/2012/SPKT I. She also submitted a complaint to the Professionalism and Security Affair Division (Propam) of the similar police station on 14 February 2012, as confirmed by a complaint receipt numbered STPL/36/II/2012/Propam.

Although the complaints were submitted almost 9 months ago, the police still have not provided Rokki’s mother with any updates regarding the development of the case or with the information on whether any investigation had taken place. The lawyers of Rokki and his mother have been repeatedly sending letters to the police yet the police have been failing to provide them with any replies.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Indonesia has been a State Party to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UN CAT) since 1998. The Convention imposes the obligation on its State Parties not only to criminalise torture but also to ‘ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.’ Article 13 of the Convention reaffirms this obligation by emphasising that a torture victim has the right to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities.

Torture is yet to be criminalised in Indonesia and the complaint mechanism for torture cases are far from independent. The current system and mechanism only allows torture victims and/or their families to complain to the police who, due to their esprit de corps, are unlikely to conduct a criminal investigation on the case. There had been isolated cases in the past where the police took up torture complaints from the victims. Yet even in such cases, the perpetrators were sent to light punishments at the end, which is partly caused by the fact that they were charged with physical assault under Article 351 paragraph (1) of the Penal Code that only carries maximum punishment of two years and eight months.

Another legal venue can be pursued by torture victims and/or their families is by lodging a complaint to the Professionalism and Security Affair Division or Propam, which is an oversight body within the police. Since Propam is attached to the police, any proceeding taking place is often not transparent and difficult to scrutinise by the public. In addition to that, Propam can only impose disciplinary punishment to the police officers who committed torture.

Proceeding under the Propam shall not be understood as a substitution to a criminal investigation. The relationship between the two, instead, has to be understood as complementary. At the same time, these two proceedings are independent from each other that a criminal investigation should be conducted regardless whether a Propam proceeding is taking place or not, and whatever conclusion Propam had come to on a case.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the listed authorities below, urging them to ensure an effective and adequate investigation upon the torture allegation lodged by Rokki’s mother. Please remind them that the failure to investigate a torture case is a separate violation to the right not to be tortured itself.

The AHRC is writing separately to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment seeking intervention in this matter.

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER