On 2 May 2026, several newspapers reported on plans to vet human rights defenders in Indonesia :
The government’s plan to screen and determine who qualifies as a human rights activist to decide who receives legal safeguards has met with backlash from civil society groups, who warn the move risks state interference in rights protections.
The plan came as the Human Rights Ministry is seeking to introduce changes to the 1999 Human Rights Law and issue a new ministerial regulation to strengthen legal protections for human rights activists, citing concerns over criminalisation against those involved in advocacy works.
To ensure legal safeguards can be provided for activists, Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai said his ministry would form an assessor team to evaluate whether detained individuals meet the criteria as human rights defenders.
The assessment will be based on strict criteria focusing on the individual’s actions at the time of the incident rather than self-declared status or public recognition. The team will review each case individually to ensure decisions are made based on the context of ongoing legal cases.
Legal protection, the minister stressed, would only be extended to those defending public interests, particularly vulnerable or marginalised groups. Those who are proven to have acted with personal or financial motives would be excluded.
“It’s possible that someone widely known as a human rights activist, at a certain moment, may be found by the assessor team to be acting for (financial gain). In such cases, they can’t be considered a human rights activist,” Mr Pigai said on April 29, as quoted by Antara.
He added those meeting the criteria would be shielded from prosecution from the earliest stages of legal proceedings.
On 23 April 2026 Anamaría Martinez and Elizabeth Moses for WRI explain how environmental defenders help prevent deforestation and protect ecosystems critical to climate stability. Yet many face severe and sometimes lethal threats while remaining underrecognized in climate policies that often depend on their work but fail to protect them.
Image by VaLife/Shutterstock
Benitha Bompendju grew up in Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, surrounded by the dense rainforests of the Congo Basin. The world’s second-largest tropical forest, it plays a critical role in regulating the global climate, conserving biodiversity and sustaining local communities like Benitha’s. Yet when she was growing up, industrial logging was constant.
Concessionaires licensed by the government to harvest timber promised to bring benefits like schools and health centers. But these projects often did not materialize, and local authorities rarely got involved. Instead, companies stripped trees from the land and left local communities — who have long stewarded and relied on the rainforest — with little in return.
“As children, we watched the concessionaires leave with the wood and our parents received nothing,” Benitha recalls. “That was injustice.” This experience shaped Benitha’s future work. In 2016, she began monitoring forest-use contracts and documenting violations, working with partner organizations and government agencies to hold violators accountable. Since then, these joint efforts have helped curb illegal logging, enforce environmental regulations and deliver promised investments to communities.
Yet this critical work can be dangerous — lethally so. Benitha and other environmental defenders like her are often caught in the crosshairs of commercial interests and corruption. Many face threats, intimidation, physical assault, kidnapping and deadly violence. Global Witness documented 146 defenders killed or missing in 2024. The total number killed or missing from 2012 to 2024 is over 2,200 — and because many cases go unreported, the true toll is likely higher.
Research consistently shows that forests managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have lower deforestation rates and greater carbon sequestration than those managed under other regimes, making their contribution a measurable climate outcome. But without necessary protections — from access to climate justice to the systems and law enforcement needed to prevent threats and tragic loss of life — environmental defenders can’t safeguard vital ecosystems. And such protections can’t materialize or become institutionalized if environmental defenders aren’t accurately recognized and reflected in climate and nature policies.
The UN defines environmental human rights defenders as “individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.” This includes those who defend the collective right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as traditional lands and livelihoods, through actions ranging from community organizing and legal advocacy to protesting, public campaigning and journalism. Many come from Indigenous and tribal groups with deep ancestral ties to the land.
Our research focuses specifically on frontline environmental defenders — those who live in, and defend, resource-rich areas experiencing what the UN Environment Programme describes as “abuse of environmental rights which affects a growing number of people in many parts of the world.”
To understand how defenders are represented in the gray (unpublished) and peer-reviewed literature on climate change under the UNFCCC, we examined 170 peer-reviewed documents from 2015 to 2025, including journal articles, books and reports, to map how defenders’ actions and contributions are reflected. The literature we surveyed both reflects trends in policymaking and serves as a source decision-makers might draw on to develop global and national climate and nature policies. Download
We found that groups such as Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and youth are increasingly acknowledged as “agents of change” with decision-making capacity, rather than portrayed as victims or passive recipients of project benefits.
However, only 5% of the literature explicitly identifies members of these groups as “defenders” working to protect ecosystems and resources. This represents a crucial gap. Climate literature (and wider climate governance frameworks) tends to recognize who these people are — such as Indigenous Peoples, women-led organizations and youth activists — but without recognizing what they do, such as monitor deforestation and challenge extractive industries, or the risks they face as a result.
This difference may seem subtle, but is crucial. Recognizing someone’s identity alone doesn’t necessarily translate into protection or funding for the stewardship and advocacy these groups engage in. Not all identity groups (for example, Indigenous Peoples) are environmental defenders, and not all defenders belong to these groups, even if there is often an overlap. Recognizing defenders’ on the ground contributions, on the other hand, is important because it highlights their role in delivering concrete climate actions — and the need for institutional support and protection, not just their inclusion as stakeholders.
Protection can include early-warning and rapid-response systems that trigger protective action when defenders report threats or surveillance. It also means access to legal aid and judicial remedies, such as fast-track investigations, special counsel and public defenders trained in environmental and land-rights cases.
Meanwhile, governments are missing out on more effective and equitable climate solutions. Defenders bring unique perspectives, knowledge and lived experience — from agroforestry practices rooted in local traditions to stronger data collection and monitoring for more accurate NDC reporting — and help ensure policies are carried out more effectively. Yet threats to defenders weaken both national and global climate action by deterring those who risk their lives to safeguard ecosystems and enforce laws and policies.
What Would It Take to Support Environmental Defenders?
Frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) under the UNFCCC already aim to integrate rights-based climate action into national and global goals. But they lack clear definitions and guidance on how defenders should be recognized and supported. To truly support environmental defenders, they must be incorporated into climate policy, reporting and finance.
Here are three ways this can happen:
1) Defining ‘Defenders’
The first step is defining what defenders are — not by identities, but by the concrete actions they take for climate protection and community resilience. Many don’t self-identify as “defenders.” They are individuals and communities that contribute to climate action and environmental protection. This would capture these de facto roles.
Adopting a practice-based definition in national and multilateral policymaking, alongside indicators that track defenders’ contributions to climate action, would allow policymakers to systematically recognize the people protecting ecosystems on the ground. Indicators could include community monitoring results, forest protection metrics or the number of co-designed adaptation plans.
This formalization would have three practical implications: First, recognizing defenders as a group would allow implementation of protection measures by identifying and addressing the risks they take. Second, it could enable governments to allocate budget to support defender-led initiatives. Third, it could strengthen their participation in decision-making at national and international levels by giving them space to share their knowledge on climate action and local ecosystems.
2) Protecting Defenders
Without safety guarantees, defenders cannot participate or contribute effectively. Protection requires two key elements: physical safety and legal resources.
Physical safety includes strengthening safeguards to reduce social and environmental risks and exploitation, for example, when concessionaires undertake projects in resource-rich areas. One way this can be supported is by creating early warning systems that allow defenders to report threats to the authorities and receive support, ensuring formal grievance mechanisms exist to ensure defender safety (with international backing, if needed). Another is by integrating defender protection requirements into climate funding, including zero-tolerance policies for violent reprisals.
Legal protection includes access to resources and courts. However, many defenders lack access due to prohibitive costs, limited connections and a poor understanding of the system. Where corruption is entrenched and governance weak, domestic legal systems can be used against defenders, leading to their criminalization as a way to silence them and stop their work. International accountability mechanisms — including UN human rights bodies, transnational legal networks and climate finance conditions tied to defender safety — can create external pressure where national systems fail. But they can only function if defenders are formally recognized. Without this, accountability is nearly impossible to demand.
Some progress has been made in different parts of the world. The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, requires parties to “ensure that individuals exercising their rights to environmental information, participation and justice are not penalized, persecuted or harassed.” And Article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, adopted in 2018, calls for “a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups and organizations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters.”
At the national level, climate justice laws and policies in Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and the Philippines enshrine protection mechanisms that cover defenders and their work, while aiming to provide access to legal support.
Environmental defenders can include anyone that protects human rights related to the environment, including rights to a safe, clean and sustainable environment. They often face threats to their well-being and lack access to legal systems that could help support them. Photo by Eric Isselee/Shutterstock
However, significant implementation gaps remain.
Colombia’s law has stalled due to limited accessibility, the absence of a clear definition of who constitutes a human rights defender and a reshuffling of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, a backlog caused in part by insufficient staffing prevents cases from being addressed in a timely manner, and protection measures are not always adequately implemented.
Indonesia recognizes defenders explicitly, but in practice, continued criminalization and intimidation prevent them from accessing the legal protection the mechanism provides. In the Philippines, financial and cultural barriers to filing cases, limited legal knowledge among defenders and slow processing times hinder the widespread implementation of legal framework protecting them.
Yet when defenders can access justice, legal action can drive accountability and tangible outcomes. In 2018, 25 Colombian youth aged seven to 26 years old filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that climate change and failure to reduce deforestation threatened their fundamental rights. While a lower court initially ruled against them, Colombia’s Supreme Court overturned the decision and ordered the government to devise and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.
Defenders need legal support and safe, inclusive access to the processes behind these laws and regulations. Rights-based climate cases and stronger rule of law systems provide essential recourse when other accountability channels fail.
3) Integrating Defenders into Climate Plans
Protecting Defenders Is Essential for Climate Action
Protecting environmental defenders is a question of safeguarding human rights and life, ensuring climate justice and strengthening climate action.
People like Benitha, who put their lives on the line to defend the forests and other ecosystems that sustain them and the world, should not face these high-stake risks alone. Governments, multilateral institutions and finance bodies share the responsibility of formally recognizing and protecting environmental defenders within climate, nature and other policies.
Doing so is a matter of equity — and a climate imperative. When defenders are safe and supported, forests stay standing, emissions stay out of the atmosphere and frontline communities can continue building resilience for their own futures and the world’s.
Front Line, Amnesty International, Forum Asia and several newspapers reported on this shocking event: On the evening of 12 March 2026, human rights defender Andrie Yunus became the victim of a targeted acid attack by two unidentified perpetrators in Central Jakarta. The human rights defender sustained severe chemical burns, including on his hands, face, chest, and eyes. The attack occurred immediately after Andrie Yunus participated in a podcast on ‘Remilitarism and Judicial Review in Indonesia’, a central topic of his human rights work. The human rights defender fell from his motorcycle, experiencing severe pain. He was immediately brought to the nearest hospital for emergency treatment. Medical examination confirmed burns on approximately 24% of his body.
Andrie Yunus is a human rights defender and the Deputy Coordinator for External Affairs of KontraS, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan). Founded in 1998, it is one of Indonesia’s leading human rights organisations. KontraS monitors human rights situation in Indonesia and documents cases of enforced disappearances and state violence. Andrie Yunus was among the human rights defenders and activists who participated in the Fairmont Protest in March 2025. Since then, he has repeatedly been targeted with intimidation and harassment in connection with his human rights work. At the Fairmont Protest, Andrie Yunus was part of the efforts to oppose the revision of Indonesia’s Military Law (RUU TNI), which allows active-duty military officers to hold positions in 14 state institutions without needing to resign. The ratification of this law in March 2025 led to a significant expansion of the military into civilian and political affairs.
According to KontraS, none of Andrie Yunus’s belongings were stolen during or after the attack, indicating that robbery was not the motive. The organisation affirms that the attack was premeditated as the perpetrators selected the specific time and location immediately after Andrie Yunus’s public engagement on militarism in Indonesia. This attack has been the most severe incident in the series of intimidation attempts and violations against KontraS and its staff members. Since March 2025, KontraS’s office in Jakarta has been surveiled by unidentified persons and on multiple occasions in March and April 2025, army vehicles were observed stopping outside the office and photographing the premises.
Front Line Defenders strongly condemns the acid attack against human rights defender Andrie Yunus and asserts that it was a reprisal for his legitimate and peaceful work in the promotion and protection of human rights in Indonesia. Front Line Defenders is gravely concerned that this attack forms part of a broader and escalating pattern of intimidation targeting KontraS and other human rights defenders in the country.
Moreover: Unidentified assailants ambushed Veronika Lumban Tobing in Jakarta, beating her and warning her to halt activism on corruption and indigenous land rights. This violence directly ties to her exposés on elite-driven encroachments in North Sumatra, mirroring patterns where Human Rights advocates face retaliation for public interest work.
On 29 April 2025 (last year) Amnesty International Indonesia raised concerns over the persistent violence and intimidation targeting human rights defenders in the country, recording at least 123 cases involving physical assaults, digital attacks, threats, and other retaliatory actions against 288 individuals throughout 2024.
Usman Hamid, Executive Director of Amnesty International Indonesia, attributed the frequency of such incidents to a lack of strong legal safeguards. “This makes human rights defenders vulnerable to threats and intimidation,” Usman said.
He added that the absence of robust legal frameworks also results in weak law enforcement, with only a few perpetrators of violence against human rights defenders in 2024 being brought to justice. Among the cases highlighted was the shooting of lawyer and human rights advocate Yan Christian Warinussy in Manokwari, West Papua, on July 17, 2024, after attending a corruption trial. [see https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/25/prominent-rights-lawyer-shot-west-papua-indonesia] “As of the end of the year, there has been no progress known in the police investigation,” Usman stated.
It was not until February 2025 that police arrested a suspect, ZT, in connection with the shooting. The arrest took place at a residence in Manokwari Regency and was carried out by the Manokwari City Police Special Team. ZT’s testimony led investigators to identify four additional suspects, including the alleged mastermind, OU, who is still at large. According to Manokwari City Police Chief Commissioner Rivadin B. Simangunsong, the attack on Yan was linked to a separate legal case: the murder of Yahya Sayori, for which Yan had been providing legal assistance. “It is motivated by another issue currently being processed in court, namely the murder case of the late Yahya Sayori, who was accompanied by lawyer Yan Christian Warinussy,” said Rivadin.
Then on 6 March 2026 came the good news that an Indonesian court acquitted four other activists after judges find no link to protest violence, prompting renewed scrutiny of policing and restrictions on civic space.
Responding to the acquittal of four activists – Delpedro Marhaen, Muzaffar Salim, Syahdan Husein and dan Khariq Anhar – accused by the authorities of inciting people to commit violent acts during the August 2025 protests, Usman Hamid, Amnesty International Indonesia’s Executive Director, said: “This brings new hope amid an creasingly shrinking civic space in Indonesia. The acquittal sends a clear message to law enforcement authorities that they should stop criminalising human rights defenders and anyone who peacefully exercises their right to protest. This is a significant victory for justice and human rights in Indonesia.
So maybe there will be progress also on the case of Yan Christian Warinussy ?
Here Haris Azhar shares how and why he believes the law can be used as a powerful tool to deal with repression of democratic voices and their rights. Read more from our In My Own Words series here.
My name is Haris Azhar. I would say I’ve been working, in general terms, on human rights issues for the last 25 years. I work across the country in Indonesia on some human rights, issues or situations, and in some conflict areas such as in Papua.
I have been working for and dealing with some vulnerable groups such as labour groups, as well as the indigenous people and victims from the violence as well. These days I practise as a lawyer, I do pro bono and also professional for-profit work where I use the profits work to subsidise the pro bono and public interest legal work. I have also joined some organisations, and I was director for two human rights organisations. So that’s why I’ve been very human rights focused.
In early 2024 me and my friend Fatia were brought to court. We won, and we got a good decision from the court. But this is not the final one, because the attorney general has appealed to the Supreme Court. I think this whole process was meant to serve as an example.
The whole process, especially last year, was intended to be intimidation. The litigation or the pre-trial process was intended to intimidate me [and] not to not say more about the practice of business oligarchs in this country. But myself, lawyers, and groups here said, we would not say sorry. We would not stop speaking, and that those in power could continue their judicial harassment of us and that we would fight them.
And during the fight, a lot of things happened [such as] intimidations, negative accusations and campaigns. They accused us of hoax stories, but actually they did the hoax stories. They took over and intercepted my mobile phone as well. These are the lengths and practices of intimidation in place.
However, the process of the court for people like us, we pretty much don’t really care about the final decisions. We can see the shadow of the prisons, because what the government thinks is important for them is for us to not have democratic voices. There aremany cases by politicians and by business groups that aim to criminalise decent voices, and it has become a [common] practice. There are even consultants that can help you if you would like to know how to criminalise decent/democratic voices.
It’s become an industry against freedom of expression, to show that, “This is what happens if you are against us.” They wanted to show they could bring me to court so the warning was that anyone who becomes the client of Haris should be aware. It was symbolic, and that’s what I mean it is a message to intimidate and to intimidate vulnerable groups especially.
Widespread engagement on human rights, working through organisations, has developed not only my knowledge, my skill, but also my networks. This has also developed my interest in what some of the ways we (as a nation) would like to put on the table with regards to issues of human rights.
As a practising lawyer, we have always believed here that we can use the law [to achieve justice]. However the movement here is not like in South Africa, as an example, where at one point in South Africa there was no real equality. There was no legal institution that could be used to secure fairness. We don’t have that kind of situation here [in Indonesia], but we are still looking for the formalisation of equality and fairness.
We like to use the legal debate, space, and discourse as a way to combat evil, because the law provides the kind of tools or ammunition to attack evil. Those in power hide behind the law and therefore here in Indonesia, most of the battle and discourse always has an element of legality.
I believe that the law is one of the crucial things that need to be handled, in addition to other advocacy issues. Because we know that the law or legal mechanisms are [also] being used by the bad guys, by the oligarchs to justify and legalise their plans and to do their own business. Those in power always say that they have complied with the law, that they uphold the rule of law, but actually we know that the law they comply with is their own creation. It is their own definition. That’s why we [as legal practitioners] need to step in, even though it’s not the popular action to do so.
If those in, and adjacent to, power cannot be left to create what is good and not good within the framework of law. We need to bring in the voices from the ground. We need to bring the voices from the indigenous people. We need to bring the voices from the labour groups, from the students, from the women’s groups, and many other vulnerable groups who are connected to the issues.
This is instead of the politicians and the business groups alone making their own arguments and developing their own definitions. We cannot let them be, and let them take over in that kind of way. Rule of law and legislation, has to be accompanied and coloured by the vulnerable voices and interests. This is why we insist that a part of the campaign, part of the research, is that we take the legal action as well.
The gap between the haves and the political groups on the ground is huge. This has been happening year on year, and it is getting worse every year. The new regulations and legislations that we have here, which very much comply with the interests of the business groups which belong to some politicians, create more loose protection of rights of workers and women. For the youth and the students, they are getting fewer protections for their education and freedom.
There’s no freedom on campus for students anymore, [because of] intervention from the government and the police on campuses. It’s getting obvious these days. So I think we need at least two things. First, figuring out how to protect vulnerable groups, because why they were attacked or would be attacked is because they found irregularities, and problematic issues behind the policies of the government, or the law.
These issues have led to economic issues, social issues, business issues and so the vulnerable groups make a choice where they complain or protest, but they get attacked by police, government and intelligence. That is why we need more collaborations with vulnerable groups.
We also need more friends — lawyers, international advocates, researchers — coming down into the rural areas, and into the urban areas to capture what is happening and make a noise, to campaign. That’s why we need to have the first group that I mentioned before. We need not to deal with the substance of the problem, but with the second layer of the problem, [which is] the attacks of the participation, the effects to the participation. For this we need to have a lot of groups [working on] how to deal with this kind of shrinking space.
We just had the 2024 elections where we campaigned around the threat to our freedoms of speech and expression. Some of the candidates responded very well, but the one that was supported by the current regime didn’t have a strong resonance with what we are saying. In addition to the campaign, along with my criminalisation, myself, some friends and organisations submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court.
Our complaint was regarding some legal articles which were being used against me and against some journalists. We won the case in the Constitutional Court earlier this year, and an article which had been used to criminalise a lot of people has now been dropped. But this win is very short [lived] because we have some articles within certain laws which allow the police to criminalise speech.
When I said we won, that’s regarding just one article in our criminal code. But in the next year and a half we will have a new criminal code implemented and new articles to criminalise speeches. We will need to challenge those articles in the next two years. It’s like Tom and Jerry, where we play hide and seek. It seems politicians and business need a shield to protect themselves from the public, hence these situations but we keep fighting them using the same law.
Legal institutions are not our institutions yet. They are still their institutions [meaning the powerful]. However to a certain degree, the legal space is an open stage for you to perform, to have a say. I think if we don’t fill the space, it will be filled by those who are not supportive of freedom of speech or freedom of expression.
These are the reasons why I think we have to join legal action. So as to not give space for evil to come in and occupy. Also, legal action is not the only type of work needed. It has to be one among others. For instance there is advocacy work too. But law cannot be neglected and that’s why this current situation (and the coming situations), require more than just focusing on the legal system. It has to be about a collaborative methodology and approach.
Responding to the indictment of two prominent human rights defenders, Fatia Maulidiyanti and Haris Azhar, Amnesty International Indonesia’s Executive Director Usman Hamid said on 13 November 2023:
“This disgraceful indictment will have a destructive effect on the work of human rights defenders in Indonesia. Instead of protecting the right to freedom of expression, the Indonesian authorities are obliterating civic space. These alarming indictments illustrate the increasing oppression faced by activists who express dissenting opinions. We urge the Indonesian authorities to immediately release Fatia Maulidiyanti and Haris Azhar. The right to freedom of expression must be respected and guaranteed.” See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/15/indonesia-human-rights-defenders-under-pressure/
The prosecutor demanded that Fatia should be imprisoned for three years and six months, and Haris for four years. They were deemed guilty after being sued by the Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan. The minister filed a defamation case against Fatia and Haris in September 2021. Both were charged by the police on 17 March 2022 with defamation under Article 27 section (3) of the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law. Amnesty International Indonesia has voiced concerns related to problematic provisions in Indonesian EIT Law, including this provision.
The police investigation relates to a YouTube video of a conversation between the two human rights defenders where they discussed the findings of a report on the alleged involvement of several military figures in the mining industry.
Amnesty International Indonesia has recorded that at least 1,021 human rights defenders were prosecuted, arrested, attacked and intimidated by various actors from January 2019 to December 2022. Meanwhile, there are at least 332 people that have been charged under the EIT Law, most of them accused of defamation, between January 2019 and May 2022.
Here a bit of wrap up on recent developments in Indonesia. First two disclaimers:
(1) I have a long-standing interest in this country [see: Indonesia and the Rule of Law, 20 Years of “New Order” Government, a Study prepared for the ICJ, published by Frances Pinter Publishers, London, 1987, pp 208 (ISBN: 0 86187 919 8) and previous posts: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/indonesia/]
(2) the human rights situation has generally improved since that book in 1987 and is a lot better compared to other countries in Asia such as China and Myanmar.
Over the past two years, human rights defenders (HRDs) have faced unprecedented challenges in Asia, where existing risks were exacerbated, while new threats have emerged. Governments enacted and used repressive laws, online harassment became widespread, and Asian HRDs have seen their families and loved ones increasingly subjected to harassment and threats. The COVID-19 pandemic has also significantly increased violations against defenders, and created new challenges for them to safely conduct their work.
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and the Commission for Disappeared Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS) presented a joint analysis, “Refusing Silence: A joint analysis on the situation of Human Rights Defenders”, as part of a collaboration in documenting cases of violations against human rights defenders in Asia, and particularly in Indonesia since 2020. [For the full PDF version of this analysis in English, click here]
The Indonesian government should put an end to the judicial harassment against human rights defenders Fatia Maulidiyanti and Haris Azhar, and uphold the right to freedom of expression, the human rights organisations said.
‘The Government of Indonesia must uphold its international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as its own national constitution which protects the right to freedom of expression,’ said the groups.
The groups urged the Indonesian government to ensure that all persons can express their opinions without fear of reprisals, and to ensure its actions are compliant with Indonesia’s Constitutional protections for human rights and the ICCPR, of which Indonesia is a State Party. The National Human Rights Institution, Komnas HAM, must also work towards ensuring the protection of defenders facing judicial harassment, the groups said.
On 22 September, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, the Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment filed a police report against human rights defenders Fatia Maulidiyanti, Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras), and Haris Azhar, Founder of Lokataru Foundation. The police report alleges that the two individuals violated criminal defamation provisions (Article 310 (1) of the Penal Code), and the controversial Electronic Information and Transaction Law (EIT Law). Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan has reportedly demanded IDR 300 billion, approximately USD 21 million, in compensation.
The report was filed after subpoenas were earlier sent to the two human rights defenders following a talk show on Haris Azhar’s YouTube channel, titled ‘Ada Lord Luhut di balik Relasi Ekonomi-Ops Militer Intan Jaya!! Jenderal BIN Juga Ada!!’, (There is Lord Luhut behind the relation of Economy-Military Operation Intan Jaya!! General of State Intelligence Agency is also there!!) in which Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti discussed the findings of a multi-stakeholder report revealing the alleged involvement of active and retired Indonesian army officials in the business operations of the gold mining sector…
The report also recorded the escalation of violent and armed conflict triggered by military operations, one of which occurred in the Intan Jaya Regency. The conflict resulted in the loss of civilian lives and the displacement of thousands of people, including children and women.
‘The legal actions by the Coordinating Minister constitute judicial harassment and abuse of power. It criminalises the rights of these two human rights defenders to express their opinions on public affairs and creates a chilling environment for individuals who criticise the government,’ the groups said.
‘We call on the Indonesian government to amend all repressive laws and legal provisions that hinder the protection of freedom of expression, and ensure the laws align with international human rights standards. The criminalisation of defamation is an inherently disproportionate and unnecessary restriction to the right to freedom of opinion and expression, under international human rights law.[4] Indonesia must immediately drop the charges against Fatia and Haris and take steps towards preventing the misuse of litigation against human rights defenders and civil society that erode the exercise of their rights,’ they concluded.
And then there is the situation of Papua:
Indonesia regularly receives criticism for its strategy in relation to separatist groups in Papua, a strategy that relies heavily on a security-based approach and which has raised questions about the government’s commitment to human rights. Most recently, the nation found itself included on a list of 45 countries cited as being culpable of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders seeking to cooperate with the UN, according to an annual report from the UN Secretary General’s Office distributed on September 17.
On 21 September 2021 A U.N. expert has urged Indonesia to provide an independence activist in its Papua province with proper medical care to “keep him from dying in prison”, after reports that his health had deteriorated.
Victor Yeimo, 39, who is the international spokesman of the West Papua National Committee, was arrested in the provincial capital of Jayapura in May. He has been charged with treason and inciting violence and social unrest in relation to pro-independence protests that swept the remote, resource-rich region for several weeks in 2019. Yeimo has denied the charges.
His trial went ahead in August despite repeated requests from his lawyer for a delay on medical grounds, Mary Lawlor, U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said in a statement on Monday. “I’ve seen it before: States deny medical care to ailing, imprisoned human rights defenders, which results in serious illness or death,” said Lawlor. “Indonesia must take urgent steps to ensure the fate does not await Mr Yeimo,” she said, adding that his access to medical care had been restricted and his prison conditions “may have amounted to torture”. Yeimo is being treated at a Jayapura hospital after a court ordered he receive medical attention. Papuan activist Rosa Javiera told a news conference organised by the rights group Amnesty International on Tuesday that Yeimo was suffering from chronic tuberculosis that required continuous medical treatmentt.
The Indonesian government has used the covid-19 pandemic as a pretext to crack down on West Papuan street protests and to impose online censorship, according to new research published by the human rights watchdog TAPOL. Covid-19 protocols have given more power to the police and military to crush protests but they are not fairly implemented across Indonesia in general. The findings are in a new study, the West Papua 2020: Freedom Of Expression And Freedom Of Assembly Report, in which TAPOL has collated and analysed incidents recorded by West Papuan and Indonesian civil society organisations.
The West Papua 2020 Report. Image: Tapol screenshot APR
A leading human rights advocate and former political prisoner in Indonesia, Carmel Budiardjo, has died, aged 96.
Carmel Budiardjo played a leading role in reporting human rights violations in Indonesia, including in West Papua, Timor-Leste, and Aceh province. She had herself been jailed without trial in 1968 for three years under the government of General Suharto, while her Indonesian husband was jailed for twelve years. They had been caught up in an anti-communist purge led by Suharto, having been arrested in 1965 on charges of involvement in an attempted coup against his predecessor President Sukarno. See: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/3BDAA6C3-CFA6-444F-7F15-77D914ACFA8B
After being released she was deported to England, where in 1973 she founded TAPOL, which stands for ‘tahanan politik’ or ‘political prisoners’ in Bahasa Indonesian.
For decades, the NGO has campaigned for the release of poilitical prisoners in Indonesia, including many who have been incarcerated in Papua merely for exercising their basic rights such as to freedom of expression or assembly.
Over the next three decades, TAPOL’s work widened to also address broader wider issues of human and environmental rights, peace and democracy in Indonesia.
According to prominent journalist John Pilger, Budiardjo’s “tireless work saw the release of political prisoners in Indonesia and gave crucial support to the heroic (independence and human rights) struggles in East Timor and West Papua“.
Despite the brutal repression of human rights activism by Suharto’s New Order regime, Budiardjo and TAPOL built an extensive network and collaborated with brave human rights defenders and pro-democracy campaigners in Indonesia.
Budiardjo raised international attention towards the 2004 assasination of Indonesian human rights campaigner, Munir Said Thalib, after whose death a lethal dose of arsenic was identified in his body.
Around the same time she launched a campaign demanding an international embargo against the British government selling arms to Indonesia when Indonesian militrary forces had launched a major offensive to crush the Free Papua movement.
She remained an active campaigner well into her 90s, concerned with the plight of political prisoners in Papua and throughout the Indonesian republic
The author of several books, Carmel Budiardjo is remembered as an inspirational defender of human rights.
The Jakarta Post of 7 September reports on a proposal by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) to designate 7 Sepember as national human rights defenders day, coinciding with the date of the assassination of prominent human rights activist Munir Said Thalib. “Dedicating Sept. 7 as national human rights defenders day could further promote the idea of providing support and protection for human rights activists in the country,” Komnas HAM commissioner Choirul Anam said in a statement on Monday. Human rights activists have persistently faced violence, harassment and criminalization to date, Choirul said. “Munir himself was a person who pioneered protection of human rights defenders in Indonesia.” Munir, the cofounder of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), was murdered with arsenic on Sept. 7, 2004, aboard a Garuda Indonesia plane on his way to the Netherlands to pursue a master’s degree in international law and human rights. Pressures have been mounting for years from the public and rights activists for law enforcement to prosecute the murder’s mastermind, who remains unknown to this date.[SEE: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/09/10/an-exceptional-number-of-ngos-90-demand-justice-for-munir-in-indonesia/]
Amnesty International Indonesia said Munir’s murder was indicative of the wider culture of impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of attacks against human rights defenders in the country. The lack of full accountability and the political will to resolve the case contributes to an ongoing climate of fear among human rights defenders, said Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid. “We call on President Joko Widodo, who has made a public pledge to resolve the case, to take decisive and concrete action. This process can be started by conducting a review of past criminal proceedings into Munir’s murder, including alleged violations of international human rights standards,” Usman said. In September 2016, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo made a public pledge to resolve the case of Munir’s murder. But the Indonesian authorities have yet to publish the report into the investigation, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 111/2004 on the establishment of the fact-finding team on Munir’s killing, which obligates the government to make the report public. This article was published in thejakartapost.com with the title “In light of Munir’s murder, Sept. 7 proposed as ‘national human rights defenders day’ – National – :
On 2 June 2020 many media (here Natasha Kuma) wrote about the ‘hot potatoe’ in the social media debate about which posts are harmful and should be deleted or given a warning. Interesting to note that the European Commission supported the unprecedented decision of Twitter to mark the message of the President Trump about the situation in Minneapolis as violating the rules of the company about the glorification of violence.
The EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “we welcome the contribution of Twitter, directed to the social network of respected European approach”. Breton also wrote: “Recent events in the United States show that we need to find the right answers to difficult questions. What should be the role of digital platforms in terms of preventing the flow of misinformation during the election, or the crisis in health care? How to prevent the spread of hate speech on the Internet?” Vice-President of the European Commission Faith Jourova in turn, said that politicians should respond to criticism with facts, not resorting to threats and attacks.
Some employees of Facebook staged a virtual protest against the decision of Mark Zuckerberg not to take any action on the statements of Trum,. The leaders of the three American civil rights groups after a conversation with Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, released a joint statement in which they say that human rights defenders were not satisfied with the explanation of Mark Zuckerberg position: “He (Zuckerberg) refuses to acknowledge that Facebook is promoting trump’s call for violence against the protesters. Mark sets a very dangerous precedent.”
————-
Earlier – on 14 May 2020 – David Cohen wrote about Facebook having outlined learnings and steps it has taken as a result of its Human Rights Impact Assessments in Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka
Facebook shared results from a human rights impact assessments it commissioned in 2018 to evaluate the role of its services in Cambodia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Director of human rights Miranda Sissons and product policy manager, human rights Alex Warofka said in a Newsroom post, “Freedom of expression is a foundational human right that allows for the free flow of information. We’re reminded how vital this is, in particular, as the world grapples with Covid-19, and accurate and authoritative information is more important than ever. Human rights defenders know this and fight for these freedoms every day. For Facebook, which stands for giving people voice, these rights are core to why we exist.”
Sissons and Warofka said that since this research was conducted, Facebook took steps to formalize an approach to determine which countries require more investment, including increased staffing, product changes and further research.
Facebook worked with BSR on the assessment of its role in Cambodia, and with Article One for Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Recommendations that were similar across all three reports:
Improving corporate accountability around human rights.
Updating community standards and improving enforcement.
Investing in changes to platform architecture to promote authoritative information and reduce the spread of abusive content.
Improving reporting mechanisms and response times.
Engaging more regularly and substantively with civil society organizations.
Increasing transparency so that people better understand Facebook’s approach to content, misinformation and News Feed ranking.
Continuing human rights due diligence.
…Key updates to the social network’s community standards included a policy to remove verified misinformation that contributes to the risk of imminent physical harm, as well as protections for vulnerable groups (veiled women, LGBTQ+ individuals, human rights activists) who would run the risk of offline harm if they were “outed.”
Engagement with civil society organizations was formalized, and local fact-checking partnerships were bolstered in Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Sissons and Warofka concluded, “As we work to protect human rights and mitigate the adverse impacts of our platform, we have sought to communicate more transparently and build trust with rights holders. We also aim to use our presence in places like Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Cambodia to advance human rights, as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and in Article One and BSR’s assessments. In particular, we are deeply troubled by the arrests of people who have used Facebook to engage in peaceful political expression, and we will continue to advocate for freedom of expression and stronger protections of user data.”
But it is not all roses for Twitter either: On 11 May 2020 Frances Eve (deputy director of research at Chinese Human Rights Defenders) wrote about Twitter becoming the “Chinese Government’s Double Weapon: Punishing Dissent and Propagating Disinformation”.
She relates the story of former journalist Zhang Jialong whose “criminal activity,” according to the prosecutor’s charge sheet, is that “from 2016 onwards, the defendant Zhang Jialong used his phone and computer…. many times to log onto the overseas platform ‘Twitter,’ and through the account ‘张贾龙@zhangjialong’ repeatedly used the platform to post and retweet a great amount of false information that defamed the image of the [Chinese Communist] Party, the state, and the government.”…..
Human rights defenders like Zhang are increasingly being accused of using Twitter, alongside Chinese social media platforms like Weibo, WeChat, and QQ, to commit the “crime” of “slandering” the Chinese Communist Party or the government by expressing their opinions. As many Chinese human rights activists have increasingly tried to express themselves uncensored on Twitter, police have stepped up its monitoring of the platform. Thirty minutes after activist Deng Chuanbin sent a tweet on May 16, 2019 that referenced the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, Sichuan police were outside his apartment building. He has been in pre-trial detention ever since, accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
…..While the Chinese government systematically denies Chinese people their right to express themselves freely on the Internet, … the government has aggressively used blocked western social media platforms like Twitter to promote its propaganda and launch disinformation campaigns overseas…
Zhang Jialong’s last tweet was an announcement of the birth of his daughter on June 8, 2019. He should be free and be able to watch her grow up. She deserves to grow up in a country where her father isn’t jailed for his speech.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 