INDONESIA: A young man died suspiciously in custody after illegal arrest 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed that Yusli, a 23-year old man, died while in custody of the Cisauk sub-district police station, Tangerang, Indonesia on 26 December 2011. Several wounds and bruises were found on Yusli’s body, in addition to a shot wound on his chest. The police claimed that Yusli was escaping, so they had to shoot him. However, the reasons for his arrest remain unclear as no arrest warrant was produced.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta), on 26 December 2011, at 3am, three persons carrying long rifles came to Yusli’s house in Bogor, West Java. For unknown reasons, they hit and handcuffed Yusli, and dragged him to a car in which a fourth person was waiting. Yusli’s father-in-law, who was at the location of the arrest, chased them to the car, but failed to stop them from taking Yusli away. (photo: Yusli, courtesy of Yusli’s family)

Yusli’s family later visited several sub-district police stations, including those in Rumpin, Cisauk, Pademangan, Legok, Gunung Sindur, Serpong and Ciputat in order to find Yusli. All the police officers in all those police stations stated that they did not know anything about Yusli or his arrest. They also informed the family that Yusli’s arrest was illegal as no arrest warrant was given to Yusli and no copy given to the family. According to these police officers, the arrest should also have been informed to the head of the local community.

Around 5pm on the same day, the community head of the Mekarsari sub-district, Mr. E. Jurjani, informed Yusli’s family that Yusli had died and his body was at the Kramat Jati hospital. Mr. Jurjani gave them Rp 2.000.000,00 (around USD 222) ‘as a form of sympathy’, a highly unusual act by a head of sub-district in responding to a death. The amount of money given was also suspicious. While Mr. Jurjani gave no further information about Yusli’s death, he asked the family to sign a blank letter, allegedly to be used as a statement confirming that the family will keep silent and not take any action on this matter. Yusli’s family refused to sign the letter.

On the following day, the family came to the hospital. At the mortuary, a man whose name sounds like Sakbani introduced himself to the family as a police officer working in the Cisauk sub-district police station. He mentioned that his friends and the chief of the Cisauk sub-district police station, Kemidjo, arrested Yusli. According to him, Yusli was attempting to escape so the police had to shoot him.

The family later saw Yusli’s dead body and found an injury on his head which looked like it was bleeding. Claw marks were found on his right chest, while a shot wound was seen on his left chest (heart). The family also found lacerations on his face and several bruises on his forehead, chin, hands and body.

As the family had doubts about the alleged cause of Yusli’s death, they immediately reported this case to the Tangerang district police. A man later approached them at Yusli’s funeral and gave them Rp 3.000.000,00 (around USD 333). He mentioned that the money was a form of sympathy from Mr. Kemidjo, the Chief of the Cisauk sub-district police. He also mentioned that Mr. Kemidjo had left money with Mr. Jurjani, and asked whether the family had received it.

On 2 January 2012, the family reported the case to the police’s Division of Profession and Security (Propam). On 31 January 2012, Propam informed the family by phone that the case had been referred to Propam at the Jakarta Metropolitan police.

On January 3, the Tangerang district police sent a letter to the family informing that they have chosen two police officers from economy division, who usually deal with business crimes, as the investigators of the case. On January 16, the Tangerang district police sent a notification letter regarding the development of investigation (SP2HP), stating that they had examined four members of the Cisauk sub-district police station as witnesses. These four police officers were Sutrisna, Aan Triharianto, Ricky Ananta Sembiring, and Hermanto. The Tangerang district police also informed the family that they were planning to question Mr. Kemidjo, but no further information regarding this examination is known until today. The last update obtained by Yusli’s family regarding the investigation was that Yusli died in a research centre for science and technology (Puspiptek) in Tangerang, to which access is very restricted, mentioned on January 25 by one of the investigators, Djarot Sudarsono.

The Tangerang district police officers did not show the family the medical certificate regarding Yusli’s death (visum et repertum) despite the family’s repeated requests for it. Yusli’s father-in-law then reported that he was able to identify one of the perpetrators as one of the members of the Cisauk Sector Police. The Tangerang Police however, took no further action upon this evidence. Yusli’s family is still ignorant about the reason for his alleged arrest, despite the fact that article 18 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code obliges the police to give a copy of the arrest warrant to the family. The police told the media that Yusli was arrested for motorcycle theft, but according to his family, Yusli had earlier been sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for motorcycle fencing and was released on 18 August 2011.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

A well established jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American human rights system has clearly stated that the physical integrity and welfare of persons held in police custody is the responsibility of the state, as such persons are of its exclusive preserve. The failure of the state to protect the life of persons held in custody, therefore, is a violation of the right to life as guaranteed in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Furthermore, the right to life as enshrined in the ICCPR obliges the state to conduct an independent, prompt and effective investigation into any deaths in custody cases. The burden of proof in these cases lies on the government. In this case for instance, it is up to the police to provide adequate proof that the shooting towards Yusli was reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

However, even if Yusli was really trying to escape, the police decision to shoot him was not in accordance with the law. According to the Head of Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on the Use of Force, an attempt to escape from the police is classified as an ‘active conduct’ which should be responded by police without any arms or weapons.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the listed authorities below urging a proper, independent and prompt investigation of this case. Any persons who are responsible in the death of Yusli should be adequately punished according to law and the family should be given proper compensation.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions calling for his intervention into this matter.

To support this urgent appeal, please click here:

 

 

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