One step back over Bali<\/p>\n
The tragedy of the Bali bombing demonstrated Australia and
\nIndonesia could rise above a sometimes testy past. Cooperation
\nbetween investigators was substantial and the prosecutions of the
\nBali bombers swift and, seemingly, efficient. The news, then,
\nthat the Bali bombers might eventually walk free - after
\nIndonesia's Constitutional Court upheld an appeal against the
\nretrospective application of anti-terrorism laws - is devastating
\nfor survivors and the families and friends of the 202 victims.
\nThe first question that should be asked is why such a precarious
\nlegal path was so confidently chosen when the possibility of a
\nConstitutional Court challenge was apparent even before the
\ntrials.<\/p>\n
The Bali bombings in October 2002 coincided with several very
\nimportant developments in Indonesia's political and legal system.
\nAfter the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 Indonesia began
\ndismantling the architecture of dictatorship and building the
\npillars of a liberal democracy. Indonesia's legal system had, for
\ndecades, been used as a blunt instrument against Soeharto's
\npolitical opponents and the establishment of an independent
\njudiciary remains critical to the legitimacy of Indonesia's new
\ndemocracy. When the first Bali bomber was sentenced to death last
\nAugust, the new Constitutional Court had not even convened.
\nHowever, constitutional amendments two years earlier included a
\nprohibition on retrospective laws.<\/p>\n
What split the Constitutional Court last week, and resulted
\nin the five-four decision to uphold the appeal, was the
\ndefinition of the Bali crimes. Five judges said the accused could
\nhave been tried under existing Criminal Codes, avoiding the vexed
\nissue of retrospective law.<\/p>\n
The Bali bombers will not walk free in the near future; they
\nface a complex and protracted legal battle. Even if they do
\nsucceed they are expected to be re-arrested immediately and
\ncharged under the Criminal Code. Indonesia has no clear position
\non \"double jeopardy' which would, potentially, prevent those
\nconvicted from being tried again for the same crimes. The use of
\nalternative criminal laws against terrorists, such as 1950s
\nlegislation which authorizes the death penalty for possession of
\nfirearms and explosives, has already been proposed.<\/p>\n
-- The Sydney Morning Herald.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/one-step-back-over-bali-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }