- 10 - They had been put into trial. In 2006, the judicial process of the case had been completed in the cassation level. All of the defendant were acquitted. On the case of Tanjung Priok, only one of the defendant, Pranowo [the Chief of Regional Military Command V Jaya (Kapomdam V Jaya)] was accussed should be responsible for the act of torture based on the definition of torture stated in article 9 Law 26/2000. The first level Court decided that the defendant, Pranowo, is found not guilty and acquitted. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. (c) The Case Papua/Irian Jaya • This case widely known as a case of Abepura. Komnas HAM conducted an inquiry on this case and concluded that torture, as crimes against humanity, was committed. Allegedly the act of torture was committed by the police against civilian who can be identified as student and common people including children. The number of victim was 106 consisted of 9 women and 96 men (the more detailed see annex). The act of torture alledgely caused death of two of victim who died in Mapolres Jayapura (the detailed see annex) and caused permanent disability of one of the victim (detailed information see annex). The act of torture took place att victim's house (at Abepura Sub-district and South Jayapura Sub-district), on the way to or on the truck up to his detention at sub district Police (Polsek) Abepura and Police Precinct Jayapura.5 The report of Komnas HAM stated that, the method of torture in this case were : (a) Inflicting of severe pain or suffering: (i) Inflicting of physical pain or suffering by act of physical violence: beating with rattan and wood, hitting with gun and kicking using military boots. (ii) Inflicting of physical pain or suffering using special devices/instruments and/or substances : burnt with cigarret on the hands of the victims. (iii) Inflicting of physical pain or suffering using water by throwing water over victim’s wound. (iv) Inflicting physical pain or suffering by forced consumption of solids and liquids by forcing the victim to lick the dropped blood on the floor, to drink water mixed with blood, and eat their own hairs (after their hairs cut off by the police). (b) • Inflicting of mental pain or suffering which were intimidation and threats causing fear.5 The result of Komnas HAM inquiry on gross human rights violation of Abepura incidents in December 2000 had been submitted to the Attorney General in 2001. This case had been investigated, which determined two defendants, Jayapura Police Commander Superintendent, Drs. Daud Sihombing, and Brigadier General Johny Wainal Usman. The two defendants had been tried in human rights courts. Only Daud who was accussed of responsible for torture. The Human Rights Court in Makassar had decided to free Daud Sihombing on 8 September 2005 and Jhony Waenal Usman on 9 September 2005. In the trial process one judge, Kabul Supriyadi gave his dissenting opinion on the court decisions. With regard to the court decisions, the Attorney General has requested a cassation to the Supreme Court. The decision was affirmed by the Supremer Court. (d)The Case of Papua (well known as Wasior-Wamena) • Komnas HAM conducted the inquiry on this case and concluded that crimes against humanity was committed. Torture as crimes againt humanity was committed and allegedly pepetrated by the police. The number of the victim for the case of Wasior was 39 civilian and 1 dead. The number of the victim for the case of Wamena was 38 civilians. In the case of Wasior, the act of torture took place in the house of the victims, on the way when the victim were brought to Makodim 1702/JWJ and in the detention of Makodim 1702/JWJ.5 • Komnas HAM had completed the projustitia inquiries of the Wasior 2001-2002 incidents and the Wamena 2003 incidents (both in Papua) in 2004. The result of the inquiry had been submitted to the Attorney General office through a letter No. 290/TUA/IX/2004 dated 3 September 2004. However, the Attorney General had returned the documents through a letter No. R-209/A/F.6/11/2004 dated 30 November 2004, which stated that the result of Komnas HAM inquiry was not complete. In response, Komnas HAM had returned the inquiry findings to the Attorney General through a letter No. 376/TUA/XII/2004 dated 29 December 2004, which firmly stated that according to article 20 paragraph 3 of the Act No. 26/2000, the investigator can only return the inquiry findings to the inquirer when the inquiry findings are insufficient, which defined as “not sufficient to meet the conditions for a gross violation of human rights to be followed up by investigation”. Until the writing of this submission, the Attorney General has not yet started the investigation of this case. (e)The Enforced Dissapearances Incident in 1997-1998 • This is a case on enforced dissapearances of activists within the period of 1997-1998. Komnas HAM conducted an inquiry on this case. Komnas HAM found substantial preliminary evidence of the occurrence of gross human rights violation of the enforced disappearance incidents in 1997-1998 in the forms of murder, arbitrary deprivation of physical liberty, torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance of civilians. Moreover, the