Bali trial in uproar
Indonesia's Constitutional Court blocks antiterrorism law.
Jakarta (AsiaNews) The trial against alleged Bali bombers may end up in a mess because of legal wrangling over the antiterrorism law. Convicted terrorists now have additional grounds to try to overturn their sentence.
The Constitutional Court found on Friday, July 24, Law No 16/2003 (the antiterrorism law) unconstitutional. The law was the legal cornerstone for the Bali trial. Applied retroactively, it enabled the authorities to arrest 70 people allegedly involved in the Bali attack, which killed 202 people and wounded more than 300, mostly foreigners. A majority of the Court's nine judges agreed that the law's retroactive principle violated the Constitution and basic legal principles.
Since "the antiterrorism law is no longer legally binding, we order all parties to implement the decision accordingly," the court's president Jimly Asshidiqie said at the reading of the decision last Friday.
On the basis of Law 16/2003, 33 people were charged for their involvement in the Bali bombing. Three of the defendants Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Gufron (a.k.a Muklas) were sentenced to death. Four others Ali Imron, Sarjio, Suranto Abdul Goni and Utomo Pamungkas (a.k.a.Idris) were given life. The remaining defendants were given prison terms ranging from 3 to 16 years.
Wirawan Adnan, a lawyer representing the Islamic militants, said that 70 people have been prosecuted for the Bali bombings based on Law No16/ 2003. Speaking on behalf of the alleged bombers' lawyers, he called for a judicial review of verdicts already passed. "We will file this month for a review of our clients' verdicts because we are afraid that their death sentence will be carried out soon," he said.
Adnan went on to demand that Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, head of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) be released saying that he would also wait 30 days for the release of his clients. Bashir was accused on April 16 of masterminding terrorist attacks and charged under Articles 14, 15, 17 and 18 of Law No 16/2003. He could face the death sentence if convicted.
According to Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, Professor at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, all the defendants in the Bali terror attack arrested under Law 16/2003 should be released immediately. "The police should use the Criminal Code and other laws to charge the defendants. I believe the ruling will create legal obstacles in trying Bashir and the other suspects," she said.
Masykur Abdul Jailani, who was sentenced to 15 years for helping the Bali bombers, was the first to claim that the new antiterrorism law was unconstitutional. In fact, the new law simply amended the main anti-terror law making it retroactive so as to cover the Bali bombing. Five of the nine Constitutional Court judges, including its president, agreed and ruled the law unconstitutional. "The non-retroactive principle is strict," judge Asshidiqie said, reading out the ruling, "otherwise, it would open the door for some regimes to use the law to take revenge against political opponents. There must be no chance for this to happen." The four dissenting judges spoke in favour of the law arguing that the retroactive principle could be applied in the case of the Bali bombing because of the huge losses the event caused to the nation as a whole.
Many Indonesians remain concerned about the possible consequences of the Court's decision. Legal experts remain split over its implications. According to Refli Harun, an aide to the Court, the ruling does not automatically overturn the convictions but gives the defendants the chance to appeal. "The convictions of all the Bali bombing suspects are still effective. The prisoners or their lawyers can however use the Constitutional Court's decision in their legal arguments to appeal to higher courts," he said.
Officials from various departments are meeting today to work out how to ensure the Bali bombers serve out their full term. Justice Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra told reporters that the bombers could not use Friday's ruling to overturn their convictions. He added that it would have been difficult to convict them under existing laws and the retrospective terrorism law was only adopted because the other laws were inadequate.
.png)
20/07/2023 19:52
