The claim specifies a report by the National Human Rights Commission regarding 12 deaths in central Papua. While multiple sources confirm the existence and function of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in Indonesia, none of the provided evidence snippets directly corroborate the specific figure of '12 people shot dead' in 'central Papua' from multiple independent news sources. The evidence is insufficient to corroborate the specific details of the incident.

This claim combines multiple specific details (military denial, NHRC report of 12 people including women/children, specific location/date). While the evidence confirms the existence and function of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in Indonesia, and mentions general reports regarding Papua, no independent sources corroborate the full narrative: the military's specific denial *and* the NHRC's specific report of 12 people including women and children on a specific day. The details are too specific to be corroborated by the provided evidence.

The claim states 'Dozens of civilians sustained serious injuries.' One web search result mentions '18 others were injured,' and another mentions 'Two civilians sustained serious injuries.' While the general theme of injuries is present in the evidence, the specific quantification ('Dozens') and the direct corroboration of this specific detail across multiple independent sources is lacking. The evidence is suggestive but not strongly corroborated.

The claim states it was initially unclear whether the civilians were killed by Indonesian or rebel fire, or both. This specific detail appears to be part of the narrative structure of the original article, but the provided evidence snippets do not contain independent reports confirming this specific ambiguity regarding the source of fire (Indonesian vs. rebel).