Justice for Nicholas Gosselin: A Test of Indonesia’s Rule of Law

By: Hafid Abbas
Commissioner and the 8th President of Indonesia National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM), 2012–2017

---

The killing of American missionary aviation pilot Nicholas F. Gosselin in Yahukimo, Papua Highlands, on July 2, 2026, should be a defining moment for Indonesia’s commitment to the rule of law. The reported execution of an unarmed civilian serving isolated Papuan communities is not merely another security incident in a long-running conflict. It is a serious test of whether Indonesia can demonstrate that justice, accountability and respect for international humanitarian law prevail even amid one of its most complex internal conflicts.

If an independent investigation confirms that Gosselin was deliberately targeted while carrying out humanitarian civilian work, the act would constitute a grave violation of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks against civilians not directly participating in hostilities. Deliberate attacks against such civilians may amount to war crimes, depending on the findings of a competent judicial process.

This principle is universal. It applies regardless of the political objectives of the parties involved. No cause, however deeply held, can justify the intentional killing of innocent civilians.

Nicholas Gosselin joins a tragic list of civilian pilots killed while providing essential services in Papua. Captain Egon Erawan and First Officer Baskoro were killed in Southern Papua in February this year. New Zealand pilot Glen Malcolm Conning was killed in Mimika in August 2024. Humanitarian aviation personnel have increasingly become targets despite providing indispensable services for remote communities dependent on air transportation for medical care, education, food supplies and emergency assistance.

The recurring nature of these attacks should alarm not only Indonesia but also the international community. Civilian aviation serving remote populations performs an essential humanitarian function that should remain beyond political dispute.

The statement issued by PACTA Finland rightly condemned Gosselin’s killing as both a profound moral outrage and a violation of international humanitarian law. Equally important was its appeal to reject violence against civilians and pursue dialogue as the only sustainable path toward peace.

Indonesia should seize this moment not merely to condemn the violence but to demonstrate that its legal institutions can deliver credible justice.

The Constitution declares Indonesia to be a state based on law. Serious crimes attracting international concern must therefore be investigated promptly, professionally and independently. Those responsible must be identified through evidence, prosecuted fairly and judged by competent courts applying due process.

Transparency is equally important. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. The investigation should include regular public reporting while respecting the integrity of the judicial process, reinforcing confidence among Indonesian citizens, Papuan communities and international partners.

Indonesia possesses the legal framework necessary to respond effectively. What is required is political determination and institutional consistency.

Under international law, states bear the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting serious crimes committed within their jurisdiction. Sovereignty, however, also carries responsibility. Where national authorities are demonstrably unable or unwilling to conduct genuine investigations, international accountability mechanisms may become relevant under applicable international law. The underlying principle is well established: impunity cannot become the outcome for grave violations of international humanitarian law.

Indonesia should therefore regard accountability not as an external demand but as an opportunity to reaffirm the strength of its institutions. A prompt, transparent and credible judicial response would demonstrate that Indonesia neither tolerates impunity nor requires external intervention to uphold justice.

Papua has experienced decades of violence, distrust and political polarization. Security operations have often contained violence temporarily but have not resolved its underlying causes. Armed attacks, civilian casualties and human suffering continue.

These realities suggest that law enforcement, while indispensable, cannot by itself produce lasting peace.

Juha Christensen, Chairman of PACTA Finland, spent three decades working in conflict resolution across Southeast Asia. He helped prepare the negotiations that produced the 2005 Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), and more recently facilitated negotiations leading to the release of New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens after more than nineteen months in captivity.

His appeal for renewed dialogue in Papua deserves careful consideration.

Dialogue should never be interpreted as weakness or as a substitute for justice. Accountability and dialogue are mutually reinforcing. Those responsible for unlawful killings must face justice, while broader political dialogue addresses the grievances and mistrust that continue to fuel violence.

The Government should therefore ensure that the National Police, the Attorney General’s Office and Komnas HAM act without delay, each within its legal mandate, so that criminal accountability and independent human rights scrutiny proceed simultaneously and transparently.

The same expectation applies to armed groups operating in Papua. Any movement seeking legitimacy must unequivocally reject attacks against civilians. Respect for international humanitarian law is a universal obligation binding on all parties to armed conflict.

The murder of Nicholas Gosselin has consequences extending well beyond Papua. It affects Indonesia’s reputation as a democratic state committed to the rule of law, international confidence in its legal institutions and perceptions of its ability to protect humanitarian workers and foreign nationals. Most importantly, it concerns the lives and dignity of ordinary Papuans who depend daily on civilian aviation services.

Indonesia has shown before that deeply rooted conflicts can be addressed through principled leadership. The peace achieved in Aceh required political courage, legal certainty, sustained dialogue and a willingness to imagine a future beyond violence.

Papua deserves the same commitment.

The immediate priority is therefore clear. Indonesia must ensure a prompt, impartial and transparent criminal investigation into the killing of Nicholas Gosselin. Those responsible should be brought before an independent court and prosecuted according to law. At the same time, the Government should reinvigorate efforts to pursue peaceful dialogue addressing the deeper roots of conflict.

Justice for one victim will not by itself resolve Papua’s longstanding challenges. But justice denied would deepen mistrust, weaken confidence in the rule of law and reinforce the perception that impunity continues to prevail.

Indonesia has both the legal authority and the institutional capacity to lead. The world will now be watching whether it does.

As Mahatma Gandhi wisely observed, “There is no path to peace; peace is the path.” For Indonesia, justice for Nicholas Gosselin is therefore more than accountability for a single crime. It is an affirmation that the rule of law, respect for human dignity and peaceful dialogue must advance together. Only when justice rejects impunity can peace in Papua become enduring rather than temporary.