INDONESIA: Punishment handed down to police officers who tortured minors to death in Padang does not reflect the gravity of the crime

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received the information regarding the judgement of the Muaro Sijunjung District Court which was delivered on 29 January 2013 on a torture case of two minors by four police officers. The two minors were found hanging dead in the bathroom of Sijunjung Sub-District Police Station in December 2011. The police initially covered up the torture and murder of the minors by claiming that they had committed suicide. The court convicted the officers for committing physical assault and sentenced them to 18 month to three year imprisonment – a punishment that is far below the severity of the crime they have committed, as the judges did not consider the death of the minors attributable to the officers.

CASE NARRATIVE:

The AHRC has been informed by the Padang Legal Aid Institute (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) Padang) that the Muaro Sijunjung District Court has delivered its judgment on a case of torture that led to the death of two brothers, Faisal (14 year old) and Budri (17 year old). Four police officers were named as suspects and the initial hearing for their trial was held on 13 November 2012. The Court delivered its judgment on the case on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 and named the four officers guilty for perpetrating physical assault, prohibited under Article 351 (1) of the Indonesian Penal Code. The Head of the Sijunjung Sub-District Police’s Criminal Unit Iptu Al Indra was sentenced by the Court to three years imprisonment, whilst the Chief of Sijunjung Sub-District Police AKP Syamsul Bahri was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and the Head of the Intel Unit Aipda Irzal as well as the investigator police Randi Agusta were both sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Faisal and Budri were found died hanging in the bathroom of the Sijunjung Sub-District Police Station on 28 December 2011. The police initially denied the torture allegation and claimed that the two brothers had committed suicide. However, the autopsy conducted on the brothers revealed there were bruises found on the bodies and an independent investigation conducted by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) concluded that Faisal and Budri were victims of premeditated murder. LBH Padang who was assisting Komnas HAM in conducting the investigation told the AHRC that they found several irregularities that made it obvious that the victims did not hang themselves. The clothes used to hang the victims’ body, for instance, did not belong to them but the police. The toes of one of the victims also touched the floor indicating that it was unlikely that they had hung themselves.

The police later revised its statement and admitted that it might be possible that several police officers had tortured Faisal and Budri. However, they refused to accept that the death of the two minors was the result of such abuse.

The four police officers were charged with three optional articles under the Penal Code concerning physical assault. The first charge was Article 351 (3) on physical assault leading to death, the second charge was Article 351 (2) regarding physical assault causing severe injuries, and the third one was Article 351 (1) on common physical assault. Amongst these three, the article on physical assault leading to death carries the most severe sentence, that is, a maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment. Compared to the other two, this article is also the most relevant to be used against the accused in this case. At the indictment stage of the hearing, however, the prosecutors decided not to use this article against the police officers. They instead used article 351 (1) of the Penal Code on common physical assault which carries a much less severe sentence, that is a maximum punishment of two year and eight month imprisonment- against AKP Syamsul Bahri and Randi Agusta and article 351 (2) on physical assault causing severe injuries against Iptu Al Indra and Aipda Irzal. The prosecutors used article 80 (1) concerning physical assault towards children under the Children Protection Law to indict Iptu Al Indra, instead of article 80 (3) of the same law on physical assault on children that leading to death.

The decision of the prosecutors to use such articles and not the one concerning physical assault leading to death reflects their view that the accused are only responsible for the physical torture but not the death of the victims. This view was sadly shared by the judges in that they rejected the restitution claim submitted by the prosecutors on behalf of the victims and the Witnesses and Victims’ Protection Agency. According to LBH Padang, the judges in this case did not take into consideration the investigation report made by Komnas HAM and LBH Padang. Komnas HAM was not invited to provide any expert testimonies before the Court either.

It is yet to be confirmed whether the prosecutors or the lawyers of the convicted will submit an appeal to the High Court.

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) and its constitution guarantees the rights not to be tortured. Despite all these, torture is yet to be criminalised under the country’s legal system. Due to the threats and intimidation, the ineffective witnesses and victims’ protection mechanism and the lack of independence procedures to investigate torture allegation, torture cases are hardly being taken to the court. Yet even in the instances where the cases are being taken to court, the absence of legal provision prohibiting torture has made it possible for the law enforcement officials to use articles that do not really reflect the gravity of the abuse, as happens in this case. As a result, those who committed torture are commonly sentenced to light punishment. Military officers who convicted guilty for torturing indigenous Papuans for three days in 2010, for instance, were only sentenced to imprisonment between 9 to 12 months.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Coupled with the irregularities found in the case, the failure of prosecutors and judges to use relevant articles to prosecute and punish the police officers raises the suspicion that the criminal proceeding has not been conducted independently. Please therefore write to the listed authorities below asking them to conduct a separate, independent investigation on the criminal proceeding for the explained torture case. At the same time, please also urge the Attorney General Office to urge the prosecutor to submit an appeal to the High Court.

The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers asking them to intervene in this matter.

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