Military Court Shortens Sentences in Acid Attack Case
An appellate court in Jakarta has reduced prison terms for soldiers convicted of attacking a human rights activist, a move that has intensified debate over military jurisdiction in civilian crimes.
A military court in Jakarta recently issued an appellate decision that reduced the prison sentences of two soldiers convicted for the acid attack on human rights activist Andrie Yunus. The ruling, dated August 20, lowered the terms for Second Sergeant Edi Sudarko and First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono by six months each, resulting in sentences of less than three years. The court also upheld the shorter sentences for Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetya and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka, all of whom are affiliated with the Strategic Intelligence Agency.
The incident occurred on March 12, when Yunus, a deputy coordinator for the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence, was attacked with acid after finishing a podcast interview. According to medical reports cited in legal filings, he sustained significant burns to his face, chest, and hands, with potential permanent vision loss in his right eye. The initial conviction in June had found all four defendants guilty of planning and executing the assault, but the recent appellate review has altered the penalties for half of the group.
Legal Framework Constraints Prosecution
The case highlights a persistent structural issue in Indonesia’s legal system, where military personnel are tried exclusively by military courts for crimes against civilians. This arrangement prevents civilian police from investigating armed forces members, a limitation that has long hindered accountability for serious violations. Lawyers from the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation argue that this jurisdictional barrier undermines justice, suggesting that the Constitutional Court should restrict military tribunals to disciplinary matters rather than ordinary criminal offenses.
Human Rights Watch, which has monitored the case, notes that this legal framework persists despite previous calls for reform. In 2010, the organization urged the parliament to enact legislation granting civilian courts jurisdiction over military crimes. The current legal landscape continues to shield soldiers from civilian prosecution, a point emphasized by legal experts who believe the current system fails to provide adequate deterrents or justice for victims of state-affiliated violence.
Ethical Violations Under Investigation
Compounding the controversy, Indonesia’s Judicial Commission alleged on July 30 that the original military panel committed unspecified ethical violations during the trial. An internal investigation into these allegations is currently ongoing. The commission, an independent constitutional body responsible for overseeing judicial conduct, raised these concerns shortly after the initial convictions were handed down. This scrutiny adds a layer of procedural uncertainty to the already contentious appellate process.
Calls for Independent Inquiry
Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai has publicly criticized the appellate ruling, though critics argue that such statements are insufficient without structural change. According to reports from GN geopolitics/rights, there is growing pressure for the government to order an independent, civilian-led investigation into the attack. Such an inquiry would aim to hold all parties accountable, including senior officials who may have ordered the assault, moving beyond the limited scope of the current military proceedings.
The forward question remains whether Indonesia will initiate a comprehensive review of its military justice system. Observers are watching for further legal challenges to the appellate decision and potential legislative action to shift jurisdiction for military crimes against civilians. The outcome of the ongoing ethical investigation into the judges will also be a key indicator of the system’s capacity for self-correction.
